Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Plaintiff was assigned to a non-smoking area of the prison, but his cellmate smoked. After refusing to return to his cell, the Plaintiff was briefly assigned to segregation. He also objected to second hand smoke in common areas or from other areas of the prison. The Plaintiff filed an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking expungement of the notation in his records that he had been in segregation and an order to the prison to better protect him from secondhand smoke. The District Court dismissed the claim.
The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiff had not stated a claim on which relief could be granted, and dismissed the case. The Court considered in its reasonings whether claims could be as a "Bivens action" or under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, but concluded that no such options would be available.