Rhodes v. Chapman
United States Supreme Court
452 U.S. 337 (1981)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
Kelly Chapman (plaintiff) was a prisoner at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) who was permanently housed in a 63-square-foot cell with another inmate. Chapman sued SOCF’s administrators (defendants) alleging that SOCF was double celling inmates due to the prison’s overcrowded population. Chapman requested an injunction prohibiting double celling as an unconstitutional practice in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The district court personally inspected SOCF and made detailed findings. These findings showed that SOCF was indeed double celling, although SOCF also had dayrooms, gyms, workshops, schoolrooms, and other facilities for prisoners to enjoy during the day. The findings also showed that although SOCF was experiencing an increased prisoner population, double celling was not leading to increased violence or depriving prisoners of medical care, food, or air conditioning. Despite these findings, the district court found that double celling violated the Eighth Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed, but it held that double celling was only unconstitutional at SOCF and not as a general practice. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether double celling was unconstitutional.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
Concurrence (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
