Charles M. Keenan v. Frank Hall, Director Oregon Department of Corrections

holding that the Eighth Amendment requires inmates to be housed in an environment that 27 is reasonably free from excess noise | holding that the 10 Eighth Amendment requires inmates to be housed in an environment that is reasonably free from 11 excess noise | stating that “verbal harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment” and 19 “[s]ummary judgment dismissing [Plaintiff’s] verbal harassment claim was proper” | holding “the Eighth 9 Amendment require[s] that [inmates] be housed in an environment . . . reasonably free of 10 excess noise” | holding that mail from a court is not legal mail | holding that dismissal of verbal 20 harassment claim was proper where plaintiff had not shown that the prison guards’ “disrespectful 21 and assaultive comments” were “unusually gross even for a prison setting and were calculated to 22 and did cause him psychological damage” | holding verbal 18 harassment, standing alone, does not violate the Eighth Amendment | declining to decide “whether mail clearly sent from a lawyer to an inmate but lacking the ‘Legal Mail’ designation may be opened outside the presence of the inmate” | declining to decide “whether mail clearly sent from a lawyer to an inmate but lacking the ‘Legal Mail’ designation may be opened outside the presence of the inmate” | providing inmates with 25 “water that is foul would be inadequate to maintain health” and 26 therefore violate the Eighth Amendment | providing inmates with “water that is foul would be 23 inadequate to maintain health” and therefore violate the Eighth Amendment | allowing challenge to prison’s “publisher’s only” rule that applied to soft-cover books | reversing district court’s summary dismissal of Eighth Amendment claim 11 premised on excess noise where the plaintiff alleged “‘screaming, wailing, crying, singing 12 and yelling,’ often in groups, and that there was a ‘constant, loud banging’” | treating allegations in prisoner’s verified amended complaint as opposing 16 affidavit | treating allegations in prisoner’s verified amended complaint as opposing 13 affidavit | treating allegations in 24 prisoner’s verified amended complaint as opposing affidavit | treating allegations in prisoner’s verified amended 27 complaint as opposing affidavit | treating allegations in prisoner’s verified amended 24 complaint as opposing affidavit | treating allegations in prisoner’s verified amended complaint as opposing 22 affidavit | treating allegations in 1 law’”; defendants can have a reasonable, but mistaken, belief about the facts or about what the law 2 requires in any given situation. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (quoting Malley v. 3 Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) | “[F]or the protection of staff and other inmates, prison authorities may place a dangerous inmate in shackles and handcuffs when they move him from his cell.” | implicitly recognizing a liberty interest claim in a prisoner’s placement in administrative segregation by remanding back to the district court for further fact finding | disrespectful 21 and assaultive comments by prison guard are not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment | “Deprivation of outdoor exercise violates the Eighth Amendment rights of inmates confined to continuous and long-term segregation.” | disrespectful 15 and assaultive comments by prison guard not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment | “[m]ail from the courts, as contrasted 15 to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” | disrespectful and assaultive comments by prison guard are not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment | disrespectful and assaultive comments by 16 prison guard are not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment | disrespectful and assaultive comments by prison guard are not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment | disrespectful and 6 assaultive comments by prison guard not enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment | “[F]or 2 the protection of staff and other inmates, prison authorities may place a dangerous inma