×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Kansas COA Upholds Denial of Hygiene Supplies
The Kansas Court of Appeals held that a state prisoner's inability to
purchase basic hygiene items and over-the-counter medication did not
violate the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment.
Kansas state prisoner David P. Stolte challenged via habeas corpus a
prison rule prohibiting him from using his incentive pay to purchase
hygiene items until his order of restitution had been satisfied in full.
Stolte claimed that pursuant to Tonge v. Simmons, 27 Kan.App. 2d 1048, 11
P.3d 77, rev. denied, 270 Kan. 904 (KS 2000), he was entitled to use one-
half of his prison earnings to purchase basic hygiene items. Stolte
further claimed that his "inability to purchase personal hygiene products
and over-the-counter medication ... violated the constitutional
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."
A district court denied Stolte relief, and he appealed. The Kansas Court
of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding:
1) "[O]nly the deprivation of essential hygienic products rises to the
level of a constitutional deprivation." In Stolte's case, the prison
provided him with a monthly indigent package that included writing
materials, "four plastic razors, & two tubes of toothpaste, a plastic
toothbrush, a comb, and four bars of soap." Stolte claimed he should be
allowed to purchase additional items such as skin lotion, deodorant,
shampoo and nail clippers. However, the Court held that "an inmate's mere
belief that additional products are necessary for his or her hygiene does
not necessarily rise to the level of a constitutional violation."
2) Stolte failed to show that his inability to purchase over-the-counter
pain medication to treat his headaches constituted deliberate indifference
since the prison provided a procedure through which Stolte could obtain
relief from his headaches (even though that procedure required Stolte to
suffer with a headache until he could see a doctor).
3) Stolte misapplied Tonge, which held only that if the Department of
Correction's garnishment of prisoners' accounts leaves them with
insufficient funds "to obtain products necessary to maintain personal
hygiene and health," then "such a deprivation alleged an ongoing
unconstitutional condition of confinement, which was properly the subject
of a habeas corpus petition." Tonge, the Court held, "never concluded that
an inmate must be allowed to access half of his or her prison account for
the purchases of hygiene products."
See: Stolte v. Cummings, 70 P.3d 695 (KS 2003).
purchase basic hygiene items and over-the-counter medication did not
violate the constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment.
Kansas state prisoner David P. Stolte challenged via habeas corpus a
prison rule prohibiting him from using his incentive pay to purchase
hygiene items until his order of restitution had been satisfied in full.
Stolte claimed that pursuant to Tonge v. Simmons, 27 Kan.App. 2d 1048, 11
P.3d 77, rev. denied, 270 Kan. 904 (KS 2000), he was entitled to use one-
half of his prison earnings to purchase basic hygiene items. Stolte
further claimed that his "inability to purchase personal hygiene products
and over-the-counter medication ... violated the constitutional
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."
A district court denied Stolte relief, and he appealed. The Kansas Court
of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding:
1) "[O]nly the deprivation of essential hygienic products rises to the
level of a constitutional deprivation." In Stolte's case, the prison
provided him with a monthly indigent package that included writing
materials, "four plastic razors, & two tubes of toothpaste, a plastic
toothbrush, a comb, and four bars of soap." Stolte claimed he should be
allowed to purchase additional items such as skin lotion, deodorant,
shampoo and nail clippers. However, the Court held that "an inmate's mere
belief that additional products are necessary for his or her hygiene does
not necessarily rise to the level of a constitutional violation."
2) Stolte failed to show that his inability to purchase over-the-counter
pain medication to treat his headaches constituted deliberate indifference
since the prison provided a procedure through which Stolte could obtain
relief from his headaches (even though that procedure required Stolte to
suffer with a headache until he could see a doctor).
3) Stolte misapplied Tonge, which held only that if the Department of
Correction's garnishment of prisoners' accounts leaves them with
insufficient funds "to obtain products necessary to maintain personal
hygiene and health," then "such a deprivation alleged an ongoing
unconstitutional condition of confinement, which was properly the subject
of a habeas corpus petition." Tonge, the Court held, "never concluded that
an inmate must be allowed to access half of his or her prison account for
the purchases of hygiene products."
See: Stolte v. Cummings, 70 P.3d 695 (KS 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Stolte v. Cummings
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 70 P.3d 695 (KS 2003). |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Stolte v. Cummings, 70 P.3d 695, 31 Kan.App.2d 639 (Kan.App. 06/13/2003)
[1] Kansas Court of Appeals
[2] No. 89,229
[3] 70 P.3d 695, 31 Kan.App.2d 639, 2003
[4] June 13, 2003
[5] DAVID P. STOLTE, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM L. CUMMINGS, J. SHELTON, J. HRABE, AND J. BRAUN, APPELLEES.
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] 1. In order to avoid summary dismissal of a K.S.A. 60-1501 proceeding, the petitioner must allege shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing mistreatment which constitutes a significant deprivation of the petitioner's constitutional rights.
[8] 2. The deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs by prison officials violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, but, in order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
[9] 3. The standard of "deliberate indifference" possesses two components. First, a court must consider whether the claim involves an essential human need. If the challenged act or omission deprives an inmate of a basic human need, the court must then consider whether prison officials were aware of the inmate's needs yet failed to meet the need in disregard of an excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety.
[10] 4. Where an inmate is provided with adequate basic personal hygiene items, correctional regulations that reasonably prohibit the inmate's access to the funds accumulated in his or her prison account do not unconstitutionally deprive the inmate of the ability to maintain personal hygiene. As a result, such a claim does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
[11] Appeal from Norton District Court; WILLIAM B. ELLIOTT, judge.
[12] Paula D. Hofaker, of Logan, for appellant.
[13] Robert E. Wasinger, of the Kansas Department of Corrections, for appellee.
[14] Before Rulon, C.J., Knudson, J., and Larson, S.J.
[15] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rulon, C.J.
[16] Affirmed.
[17] Petitioner David P. Stolte appeals the district court's denial of the relief requested in his habeas corpus petition. Petitioner claims the inability to purchase personal hygiene products and over-the-counter medication has violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
[18] The underlying facts are neither complex nor contested and are as follows:
[19] The petitioner filed a grievance alleging that he was entitled to apply one-half of his prison earnings for the purchase of basic hygienic items relying upon Tonge v. Simmons, 27 Kan. App. 2d 1048, 11 P.3d 77, rev. denied 270 Kan. 904 (2000). The prison unit team response indicated the petitioner misinterpreted the holding of Tonge and further stated petitioner qualified for an indigent hygiene supplies packet because facility policy procedures prevented petitioner from using his prison earnings to purchase such supplies until his order of restitution had been satisfied in full. The prison unit team response was reviewed and affirmed by the Prison Warden and William L. Cummings, the Secretary of Corrections' designee.
[20] Eventually, the petitioner filed this habeas corpus action claiming the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated a liberty interest created by the promulgation of rules regarding the application of incentive pay. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the holding in Tonge requires the DOC to permit inmates to use half of their prison earnings for the purchase of personal hygiene products.
[21] The district court found the petitioner failed to raise a claim of deprivation significant enough to impinge upon constitutional rights and denied the habeas corpus relief requested.
[22] Our standard of review in the context of a 1501 action is whether the district court's findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent evidence and if such findings are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. This court has unlimited review of the district court's conclusions of law. See Collier v. Nelson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 582, 584-85, 966 P.2d 1117, rev. denied 266 Kan. 1107 (1998).
[23] In order to avoid summary dismissal of a K.S.A. 60-1501 proceeding, the petitioner must allege shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing mistreatment which constitutes a significant deprivation of the petitioner's constitutional rights. See Bankes v. Simmons, 265 Kan. 341, 349, 963 P.2d 412, cert. denied Hannigan v. Stansbury, 525 U.S. 1060 (1998).
[24] Here, the petitioner claims that the correctional facility's deliberate indifference to his personal hygiene needs is cruel and unusual punishment. Clearly, among the governmental acts prohibited by the Eighth Amendment is the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981). The deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs by prison officials violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, but, "[i]n order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 1103-06, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). See also Darnell v. Simmons, 30 Kan. App. 2d 48 P.3d 1278 (2002). This same standard applies to allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991).
[1] Kansas Court of Appeals
[2] No. 89,229
[3] 70 P.3d 695, 31 Kan.App.2d 639, 2003
[4] June 13, 2003
[5] DAVID P. STOLTE, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM L. CUMMINGS, J. SHELTON, J. HRABE, AND J. BRAUN, APPELLEES.
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] 1. In order to avoid summary dismissal of a K.S.A. 60-1501 proceeding, the petitioner must allege shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing mistreatment which constitutes a significant deprivation of the petitioner's constitutional rights.
[8] 2. The deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs by prison officials violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, but, in order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
[9] 3. The standard of "deliberate indifference" possesses two components. First, a court must consider whether the claim involves an essential human need. If the challenged act or omission deprives an inmate of a basic human need, the court must then consider whether prison officials were aware of the inmate's needs yet failed to meet the need in disregard of an excessive risk to the inmate's health or safety.
[10] 4. Where an inmate is provided with adequate basic personal hygiene items, correctional regulations that reasonably prohibit the inmate's access to the funds accumulated in his or her prison account do not unconstitutionally deprive the inmate of the ability to maintain personal hygiene. As a result, such a claim does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
[11] Appeal from Norton District Court; WILLIAM B. ELLIOTT, judge.
[12] Paula D. Hofaker, of Logan, for appellant.
[13] Robert E. Wasinger, of the Kansas Department of Corrections, for appellee.
[14] Before Rulon, C.J., Knudson, J., and Larson, S.J.
[15] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rulon, C.J.
[16] Affirmed.
[17] Petitioner David P. Stolte appeals the district court's denial of the relief requested in his habeas corpus petition. Petitioner claims the inability to purchase personal hygiene products and over-the-counter medication has violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm.
[18] The underlying facts are neither complex nor contested and are as follows:
[19] The petitioner filed a grievance alleging that he was entitled to apply one-half of his prison earnings for the purchase of basic hygienic items relying upon Tonge v. Simmons, 27 Kan. App. 2d 1048, 11 P.3d 77, rev. denied 270 Kan. 904 (2000). The prison unit team response indicated the petitioner misinterpreted the holding of Tonge and further stated petitioner qualified for an indigent hygiene supplies packet because facility policy procedures prevented petitioner from using his prison earnings to purchase such supplies until his order of restitution had been satisfied in full. The prison unit team response was reviewed and affirmed by the Prison Warden and William L. Cummings, the Secretary of Corrections' designee.
[20] Eventually, the petitioner filed this habeas corpus action claiming the Department of Corrections (DOC) violated a liberty interest created by the promulgation of rules regarding the application of incentive pay. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the holding in Tonge requires the DOC to permit inmates to use half of their prison earnings for the purchase of personal hygiene products.
[21] The district court found the petitioner failed to raise a claim of deprivation significant enough to impinge upon constitutional rights and denied the habeas corpus relief requested.
[22] Our standard of review in the context of a 1501 action is whether the district court's findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent evidence and if such findings are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. This court has unlimited review of the district court's conclusions of law. See Collier v. Nelson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 582, 584-85, 966 P.2d 1117, rev. denied 266 Kan. 1107 (1998).
[23] In order to avoid summary dismissal of a K.S.A. 60-1501 proceeding, the petitioner must allege shocking and intolerable conduct or continuing mistreatment which constitutes a significant deprivation of the petitioner's constitutional rights. See Bankes v. Simmons, 265 Kan. 341, 349, 963 P.2d 412, cert. denied Hannigan v. Stansbury, 525 U.S. 1060 (1998).
[24] Here, the petitioner claims that the correctional facility's deliberate indifference to his personal hygiene needs is cruel and unusual punishment. Clearly, among the governmental acts prohibited by the Eighth Amendment is the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 101 S. Ct. 2392 (1981). The deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs by prison officials violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, but, "[i]n order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 1103-06, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). See also Darnell v. Simmons, 30 Kan. App. 2d 48 P.3d 1278 (2002). This same standard applies to allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991).