The following excerpt is from Stephen v. Hewitt, 73 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 1995):
Stephen's claim that double-celling violates the Eighth Amendment lacks merit. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 348 (1981). Stephen's conclusory allegations about the double-celling conditions fail to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendants subjected him to "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" or whether the conditions resulted in a "serious deprivation of basic human needs." Id.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.