A pro se prisoner brought a 42 U.S.C. sec 1983 action against prison officials, alleging that they exposed him to cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting him to exposure to secondhand smoke.  A November 2005 report from a Magistrate Judge recommended that Holdcroft’s complaint be dismissed. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio agreed, ruling that Holdcroft had failed to state a claim because he had not satisfied either the objective or subjective components of the requirement to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.  The court ruled that Holdcroft had not pleaded exposure to an unreasonably high level of smoke and failed to meet the subjective component because the record shows that the prison officials did not act with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s medical needs and tried to enforce no-smoking rules.

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1502 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ohio).