Anderson v. Cnty. Of Kern, 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Anderson v. Cnty. Of Kern, 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
ScopeAbrogated by Sandin v. Conner on other grounds: 5 citing opinions limit it to other grounds.
5 on other grounds
How later opinions annotate it (1 example)
  • on other grounds See Anderson v. Cty. of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1315 (9th Cir.), 15 opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by 16 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (in evaluating challenges to conditions of confinement, 17 length of time the prisoner must go without basic human needs may be considered) — (PC) Wilson v. Molina, No. 1:24-cv-00499 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2024)
Counts are distinct citing opinions whose annotation names this case. The flag stays yellow when any point is no longer good law; the scope says how far that reaches.
Quick Summary

Administrative segregation alone does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, nor does temporary exposure to unsanitary conditions generally violate constitutional standards.

This order denies a petition for rehearing and rejects a suggestion for rehearing en banc in a civil rights action involving county jail conditions. The court amends its prior opinion to clarify that it need not decide whether the deliberate indifference standards under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments diverge. The court notes that the plaintiffs did not differentiate between the two standards in their briefs and emphasized the Eighth Amendment formulation, which the court applied. The court concludes that any possible divergence between the standards would not have affected the outcome of the decision.

124 citation events (115 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Moore 275487 v. Ryan, No. 2:18-cv-00859 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
[A] lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“a lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the eighth amendment.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 5 citing cases listed
Other citing cases37 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 27 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jerry Anderson Glenna Blair Terry Davis John Wardwell Jesse Vasquez Irene Jarez Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
v.
County of Kern John Smith, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants
93-15019.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 7, 1995.
Published opinion
75 F.3d 448
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40462
1995 WL 794177
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: #35,274 of 633,719
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2) · D. Arizona (1) · D. Nevada (1)

75 F.3d 448

Jerry ANDERSON; Glenna Blair; Terry Davis; John Wardwell;
Jesse Vasquez; Irene Jarez;
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
v.
COUNTY OF KERN; John Smith, Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 92-17040, 93-15019.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

July 7, 1995.

Richard A. Derevan and Deborah Fabricant, Snell & Wilmer, Irvine, CA, Richard P. Herman, Laguna Beach, CA, and Sanford Jay Rosen, Rosen, Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.

Holly N. Gallagher, B.C. Barman, County Counsel, Bakersfield, CA, John Hagar, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.

Thomas E. McConnell, Cal. Bd. of Corrections, Sacramento, CA, for amicus curiae Cal. Bd. of Corrections.

Prior report: 45 F.3d 1310.

Before: POOLE, CANBY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

[*~448–449]1

This panel has voted to deny plaintiffs-appellants-cross appellees' petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

2

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35.

3

Plaintiffs-appellants-cross appellees' petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

4

The opinion filed January 13, 1995 is amended to include the following footnote at the end of the second paragraph of Section I, at page 505 of the slip opinion and 45 F.3d 1310, 1313:

5

We need not decide here whether, under some circumstances, the "deliberate indifference" standards under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments diverge. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1442-43 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). The plaintiffs did not differentiate between the two standards in their briefs, and emphasized the Eighth Amendment formulation, which we apply in this opinion. We are convinced that any possible divergence would not have affected the outcome of our decision.