Attempt to exhaust administrative remedies

Garner, Curtis



Curtis Garner Pennsylvania Attempt to Exhaust Administrative Remedies 1-21-15 Wednesday After writing several grievances concerning clean sheets and towels and receiving no response, formal or informal, within the established procedural time period, the staff and administration of this facility has clearly exhibited a standard of "deliberate indifference" as outlined by the Supreme Court. Administration is aware of the potential danger of spreading infectious diseases within this facility as evidenced by numerous placards and signs posted throughout concerning MRSA and advocating frequent hand washing. In spite of this, a haphazard and sporadic policy of delivering clean linen and towels, as well as non-existent cell cleaning schedules, remains the standard here. The linen/towel detail moves through prisoners housing area at no set time and without proper notification. Often times they dont show at all and a plethora of excuses is made available by staff upon further inquiry. "Deliberate indifference" is established if "the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety" (Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 835-36; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. at 297-304). The current procedure for exchanging sheets and towels applies the burden of responsibility upon the prisoner, as they must stand by their door when or if the officer responsible for these supplies shows up. Because of cell construction here, a persons ability to hear directions from the main console is limited; staff is aware of this. The linen detail sneaks through, when they do show up, servicing less than half of the population. For any person not to change linen frequently endangers every person here; consequently, for the linen officer to bypass any cells delivers a standard of deliberate indifference to the entire population. "As with other prison conditions under the deliberate indifference standard, officials must be shown to have known of unsanitary conditions to be held liable for them" (Gates v. Cook, 376 F. 3d 323, 338 (5th cir. 2004). This case affirmed deliberate indifference standard where conditions were "not atypical and easily observed." Most persons in these units go weeks and months without changing sheets/towels because of set procedure, a fact known by all prisoners, staff, and pertinent administration. Prison officials cannot escape their responsibilities for maintaining sanitation by blaming prisoners, either for causing unsanitary conditions or for failing to clean them up1. "The prison administration must bear the ultimate responsibility for cell block conditions" (Blake v. Hall, 668 F 2d 52, 57-58 1st cir. 1981). "Prison official can use inmate workers to keep the prison clean, but it is still the officials responsibility to provide adequate supplies, maintain fixtures and equipment, and organize cleaning activities (Carty v. Farrelly, 957 F. Supp. 727, 736 (O.V.I 1997)-noting threat to health and safety caused by lack of plans for housekeeping, maintenance, and sanitation.)2 The linens/towel exchange policy is erratic and unpredictable as it stands, as such being a clear and direct violation of Eigth Amendment rights of every person in this facility. -Curtis Garner 1 [PSHLM?] p.26 2 same, p. 27 - Semper Fidelis -

Author: Garner, Curtis

Author Location: Pennsylvania

Date: October 19, 2016

Genre: Essay

Extent: 2 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays