).  A pro se prisoner filed a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 action, alleging that he was exposed to unreasonably high levels of ETS produced by fellow inmates and prison officials in violation of the jails no-smoking policy.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Hinton “has not provided evidence that he was personally exposed, suffered health consequences as a result of the exposure, and that his exposure to unreasonably high levels of ETS occurred at the D.C. Jail.”  The court also ruled that the existence of a no-smoking policy, even if it was imperfectly enforced, is evidence rebutting the claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the health risks of ETS .

Hinton’s appeal was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, at 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16178.

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3573 (U.S.D.C. D.C. 2005).