Corbin v. Bickell

 A nonsmoking inmate filed a pro se civil rights action against various prison officials, alleging that he was constantly subjected to secondhand smoke.  He also claimed that these officials were deliberately indifferent to the medical harm he was suffering because of his exposure to the secondhand smoke and that they ignored his frequent complaints about that exposure.  Magistrate judges recommended that Corbin’s complaint be dismissed as to four individuals because they “are not alleged to have sufficient personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing.”  However, the judges found that Corbin “ has sufficiently alleged that Defendants Granlund and Bickell knew he was exposed to excessive environmental tobacco smoke and that these Defendants were aware that the environmental tobacco smoke posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to Plaintiff’s future health or caused Plaintiff a contemporaneous injury.”

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, at 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95640 (M.D. Pa. 2013) agreed with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.  

Corbin v. Bickell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96274 (M.D. Pa., 2013).