Full opinion text
RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On August 5, 2013, this matter came before the Court for a non-jury trial on the merits and a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12). Having considered the parties pretrial and post-trial submissions, the evidence introduced at the trial, and the arguments presented by counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving that Defendants have subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiffs did not introduce sufficient evidence to establish that Defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, as modified by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as outlined below. Further, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court’s credibility findings, findings of fact and conclusions of law are set forth below, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 52(a). II. JURISDICTION It is uncontested that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201. III. BACKGROUND A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Plaintiffs Elzie Ball (“Ball”), Nathaniel Code (“Code”), and James Magee (“Ma-gee”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are death row inmates, who are currently incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana (“Angola”). Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants James M. LeBlanc (“LeBlanc”), Nathan Burl Cain (“Cain”), Angelia Norwood (“Norwood”), and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”); the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const, amend. VIII; Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as modified by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act (the “ADAAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, their rights under the Eighth Amendment, ADA, ADAAA, and Rehabilitation Act by subjecting them to excessive heat, acting with deliberate indifference to their health and safety, and discriminating against them on the basis of their disabilities. Plaintiffs seek a ruling and order from this Court granting their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12), and requiring Defendants to take action to decrease and maintain the heat index in the Angola death row tiers at or below 88 degrees Fahrenheit. Plaintiffs further seek a ruling and order: (1) declaring that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights; (2) requiring Defendants to develop and implement a long-term plan to maintain the heat index in the Angola death row tiers at or below 88 degrees Fahrenheit; (3) appointing a monitor to oversee Defendants’ implementation of such plan; (4) requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs clean, uncontaminated ice and drinking water at regular intervals during the summer months; (5) requiring Defendants to lower the shower temperature during the summer months; and (6) enjoining Defendants from retaliating against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 12205. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and deny all liability. (Docs. 15, 38.) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not suffered, nor are they likely to suffer, adverse health effects due to the conditions of confinement at Angola’s death row facility. Defendants further contend that they have not violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA, AD AAA, or Rehabilitation Act. Thus, Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion, rule in Defendants’ favor, and deny Plaintiffs all requested relief. B. Procedural History The instant litigation was filed on June 10, 2013. (Doc. 1.) Eight days later, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 12.) On July 2, 2013, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was heard with oral argument. (Doc. 24.) After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court determined that it was necessary to obtain current, accurate temperature, humidity, and heat index data from Angola’s death row facility before ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion. Accordingly, the Court deferred its ruling, pending the collection of such data by a neutral third-party expert. (Doc. 24.) The Court also issued a scheduling order, and set the trial on the merits to begin on August 5, 2013. (Docs. 24, 28.) Subsequently, the Court ordered the parties to retain a neutral third-party expert to install the necessary equipment, and record, collect, and disseminate the required data, beginning on July 15 and ending on August 5, 2013. (Doc. 36.) From August 5 through August 7, 2013, the Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and the trial on the merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). During the trial, the parties jointly submitted the temperature, heat index, and humidity data collected and analyzed by the neutral third-party expert, United States Risk Management, L.L.C. (“USRM”), to the Court. During the trial, the parties also presented testimonial evidence regarding the conditions at Angola’s death row facility, and Plaintiffs’ underlying medical conditions and medications. Following the trial, the undersigned toured the death row facility and observed the conditions first-hand. As a result, the Court makes the following credibility findings, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. IV. CREDIBILITY FINDINGS 1. “In a non-jury trial, credibility choices and the resolution of conflicting testimony are the province of the judge, subject only to Rule 52(a)’s clearly erroneous standard.” Justiss Oil, Co., Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Refining Corp., 75 F.3d 1057, 1067 (5th Cir.1996) (citation omitted); Reich v. Lancaster, 55 F.3d 1034, 1045 (5th Cir.1995) (“The trial judge’s ‘unique perspective to evaluate the witnesses and to consider the entire context of the evidence must be respected.’ ”) (citation omitted). 2. In making its findings of fact, the undersigned relied on the parties’ written submissions, the oral testimony presented at trial, and the evidence introduced at trial. Due to the number of disputed facts, it was necessary to consider the demeanor of each witness, his or her interests in the case, and the internal consistency of his or her testimony. See Justiss Oil, 75 F.3d at 1067. 3. The following are the Court’s credibility findings as to Defendant Norwood. 4. On July 15, 2013 at 4:45 p.m., Defendant Norwood issued an email to all of the death row supervisors regarding the monitors that were installed in the death row tiers by USRM. Norwood’s email ordered the following: In order to ensure accurate and consistent temperature recording, all fans and windows are not to be adjusted in any manner. In addition, no offender and/or employee is to tamper with the recording devices placed on each tier. Only authorized persons will be allowed inside the cells with the recording devices. 5. Despite Norwood’s issuance of the hold order, Defendants installed awnings over the windows in tiers C and G on or about July 26, 2013. Such awnings remained on the windows from that date until the end of the data collection period. Defendants also attempted to wet and/or mist the ceiling and/or outside walls of certain housing tiers using water hoses. Defendants took such actions without seeking the permission of the Court. 6. When asked by counsel for Plaintiffs about her understanding as to the purpose of the data collection, Norwood testified as follows: BY MR. VORA: Ms. Norwood, what was your understanding as to why USRM was installing those monitors? BY MS. NORWOOD: Because the Judge wants a fair and impartial, objective reading of the temperatures. BY MR. VORA: And you understood that it was important for you to make sure that he did get fair and impartial readings of the temperatures inside of the death row tiers, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. BY MR. VORA: In fact, you understood it and you even advised the other death row supervisors to ensure that the correctional officers also understood that they were to ensure that the Judge received fair and impartial numbers for the USRM monitors, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. BY MR. VORA; The reason that you asked for all the fans and windows not to be adjusted in any manner was to ensure, in your words, accurate and consistent temperature recordings, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. 7.Later, Norwood testified that she understood that: (1) the data was being collected pursuant to a court order; (2) she had an obligation to obey the Court’s order; and (3) she had an obligation not to engage in any actions that could possibly interfere with the collection of such data. BY MR. VORA: And you understand that the USRM data was also being collected pursuant to the Court’s order, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. BY MR. VORA: And you understood that you had a duty to obey the Court’s order and to not engage .in any action that might interfere with the Court’s collection of that data, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. BY MR. VORA: You understood that the Court wanted accurate and consistent temperature recordings, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. 8. Despite this testimony, Norwood proceeded to testify that it “didn’t occur” to her that Defendants’ installation of window awnings and use of “soaker” hoses might interfere with the data collection. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. BY MR. VORA: ... [D]id it ever cross your mind that the awnings might interfere with this Court’s order that the temperature be accurately consistently recorded and collected? BY MS. NORWOOD: No, it did not. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. 9. Norwood further added that she did not see a problem with Defendants’ installation of the awnings or use of the “soak-er” hoses. Thus, she did not question her superiors, nor did she attempt to prevent the installation or use of such devices, after Defendant Cain ordered the installation and use of such. 10. Norwood’s credibility was further undermined by her testimony that it “didn’t occur” to her that Defendants’ installation and use of such devices was inconsistent with her July 15, 2013 email. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. 11. When questioned by the Court, Norwood testified as follows: BY THE COURT: ... it didn’t dawn on you that [Defendants’] activity was completely inconsistent with your email, the message in your email? ... and now you are testifying — you’re telling the Court that somehow you didn’t think there was any problem with the installation, even after you issued this email message to all [of] the supervisors on death row? You saw nothing wrong, no problem with the installation of the awnings? You saw no problem with the use of the misters or soaker hoses or anything else? Is that what you are telling me? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes, sir. It is. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. 12. When further questioned by the Court, Norwood testified that she did not believe that the awnings or “soaker” hoses would affect the temperature readings. 13. That testimony, however, was wholly inconsistent with Norwood’s later testimony, in which she admitted that the purpose of the awnings and “soaker” hoses was to attempt to lower the temperatures inside the death row housing tiers: BY MR. VORA: Why were the awnings installed on the death row tiers? BY MS. NORWOOD: To see if it would make a difference as far as providing shade over the windows, to see if it would cool — to see if it would make a difference, as far as the temperature, to bring it down. BY MR. VORA: Are you ever in a position to ask Warden Venoit questions? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. BY MR. VORA: Did you ask him whether installing soaker hoses would affect the gathering of the data consistently and accurately pursuant to this Court’s order? BY MS. NORWOOD: Not in so many words. BY MR. VORA: Did you ask him in any words? BY MS. NORWOOD: Yes. BY MR. VORA: What did you ask him? BY MS. NORWOOD: I asked him if he seriously thought that wetting the outside of that building would impact the interior temperature. BY MR. VORA: Why did you ask him about impacting the interior temperature, but you didn’t ask him about whether or not that would be consistent with this Court’s order that accurate and consistent data be recorded? BY MS. NORWOOD: It didn’t occur to me. BY MR. VORA: But your understanding as to why any of these actions with respect to soaker hoses or awnings, your understanding was that it was in order to further the settlement, correct? BY MS. NORWOOD: No. BY MR. VORA: What was your understanding as to why that was happening? BY MS. NORWOOD: My understanding was to — to see if there was anything that would work to reduce the temperature. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Angelia Norwood, Aug. 5, 2013. 14. As highlighted above, Norwood’s testimony was illogical and riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. For example, despite instructing her subordinates to not tamper with the tier windows “to ensure accurate and consistent temperature recording[s],” Norwood attempted to convince the Court that it “didn’t occur” to her that Defendants’ installation of the window awnings and use of “soaker” hoses may interfere with the data collection. 15. In another example, Norwood testified that she understood that the purpose of the twenty-one day data collection period was to collect accurate and consistent data. Yet, she testified that she never questioned Defendants’ attempts to alter the temperature, and thus, the data. 16. In another example, despite testifying that it “didn’t occur” to her that Defendants’ actions may alter the temperature, and thus, the data, Norwood subsequently testified that the purpose of the window awnings and “soaker” hoses was to alter the temperature inside the death row tiers. 17. In sum, the Court finds that Nor-wood’s testimony on this issue lacked the ring of truth. Accordingly, this Court does not consider Norwood to be a credible witness, particularly as it relates to Defendants’ actions during the data collection period. Accordingly, Norwood’s testimony regarding Defendants’ actions during the data collection period were not relied on by the undersigned. V. FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact are uncontroverted or supported by the evidence in the record. Where a particular fact was controverted, the Court weighed the evidence and determined that the evidence presented by the party supporting that fact was more persuasive. A. Angola’s Death Row 1.In 2006, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections constructed a new facility at Angola to house inmates who have been sentenced to death (“death row” or “death row facility”). The 25,000 square foot death row facility features four housing wings, each of which contains (1) two housing tiers; (2) administrative offices; (3) visitation rooms; (4) a medical clinic; (5) a dental clinic; (6) a control center where the correctional officers are stationed; and (7) an execution chamber. Air conditioning is provided in the administrative offices, visitation rooms, medical clinic, dental clinic, control center, and execution chamber. Air conditioning is not provided in the tiers where the inmates are housed. 2. Each of the four housing wings extend from the control center like spokes on a wheel. Each wing contains two housing tiers, for a total of eight tiers. Each tier is assigned a letter name: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. Currently, only tiers A, B, C, F, G, and H house death row inmates. 3. Between the housing tiers, which sit back-to-back, are a series of pipes, in which are encased the plumbing, electrical wires, and duct work for the entire wing. 4. Each tier contains between twelve and sixteen cells, which house one inmate each, and a tier walkway. Tiers A, B, G, and H contain sixteen cells. Tier C contains twelve cells. Tier F contains fourteen cells. 5. The ceiling, floor, and walls of each housing tier are made of concrete. Similarly, the ceiling, floor, and walls of each inmate cell are made of concrete. 6. Each inmate cell is separated from the tier walkway by metal security bars. 7. Approximately nine feet across from the security bars are louver windows. The record is unclear as to how many windows are in each housing tier. However, the record indicates that each window measures approximately two feet wide by four feet tall. 8. Each louver window is comprised of a screen and a series of translucent, sloping, overlapping blades or slats that may be adjusted to admit varying degrees of air or light. Like most louver windows, the windows do not open in the traditional method. Rather, to open the window, one must tilt or adjust the horizontal louvers by using a handle. The maximum degree to which the louvers may be tilted is approximately forty-five degrees. 9. Above the windows are non-oscillating mounted fans that measure thirty inches in width. Each fan is shared by two inmates (i.e., the fan services two cells). The uncontroverted testimony at trial was that the mounted fans were not a part of the original construction. Rather, they were added to the death row tiers at a later date. 10. Death row inmates are required to remain in their cells twenty-three hours a day. 11. Each cell includes a sink, mirror, toilet, bed, desk, and chair. There are no windows or fans inside the cells. Rather, each cell contains a vent, measuring approximately six inches by eight inches, through which air from the window on the other side of the tier is drawn into the cell, and then into the vent, and then into the housing wing’s exhaust system, and then to the outside. 12. During the one hour period in which inmates are permitted to leave their cells, inmates may engage in outdoor recreation in the recreation cage, or spend time in the tier walkway (“tier time”), and/or take a shower. 13. Each tier has two shower stalls, one standard shower and one handicap accessible shower. Inmates are permitted one shower per day. The shower water temperature is maintained between 100 and 120 degrees. 14. Each housing tier also has a portable, forty-eight ounce or sixty-eight ounce chest cooler (“ice chest”) where Angola staff place ice from the death row facility’s only ice machine. The ice chest is located in the tier walkway, at the entrance of the tier. Inmates are permitted access to the ice chest during their tier time only. Thus, during the twenty-three hours in which the inmates are confined to their cells, they do not have direct access to the ice chest. 15. Ice is not usually distributed to the inmates by the correctional officers. Indeed, the correctional officers are not required, and sometimes decline requests from the inmates, to distribute ice to the inmates. Rather, although they are not required to do so, the inmates who are on tier time usually distribute ice to the inmates who are confined to their cells. As a result, the inmates who are confined to their cells must rely on other inmates to distribute ice to them during each respective inmate’s tier time. 16. If an inmate chooses to engage in outdoor recreation rather than tier time, or refuses to distribute ice to inmates who are confined to their cell, then the confined inmates do not receive ice during that hour. Further, if an inmate exhibits habits that the other inmates consider to be unsanitary, the other inmates will not ask such inmate to distribute ice during his tier time. As a result, inmates who are confined to their cells do not receive ice during that hour, unless the correctional officers agree to provide it. 17. Inmates also do not have access to the ice chest during the overnight hours, during which the death row tiers are locked down. Further, it is uncontroverted that, over the course of a day, the ice in the ice chests, as well as the ice in the facilities’ only ice machine, frequently runs out. 18. While Angola’s death row has a facility-wide heating system, none of the housing wings include a mechanical cooling system by which the dry bulb (i.e. ambient temperature) (“temperature”), humidity level, or heat index can be lowered. 19. It is uncontroverted that the housing wings were designed without a mechanical cooling system. Instead, each wing features a ventilation system that consists of the above-mentioned windows and cell vents, as testified to by witness Frank Thompson. BY MS. COMP A: Is there any mechanism on the death row tiers to lower the temperature or humidity? BY MR. THOMPSON: No. Just ventilation. BY MS. COMP A: What is the relationship between the temperature and the humidity outside and the temperature and humidity inside the death row tiers? BY MR. THOMPSON: The ventilation brings the air in from the back of the cells through the windows, across the — across the way — from the windows into the exhaust grill that’s in the back of the cell. So, it just brings it in from the outside. So basically, you’re using the outside air to cool or ventilate the space. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Frank Thompson, Aug. 5, 2013. 20.It is also uncontroverted that the ventilation system does not reduce the temperature, humidity level, or heat index in the housing tiers. Thus, there is no system that will lower or limit the temperature, humidity level, or heat index in the tiers. BY MS. COMPA: And would it be any cooler inside than it is outside? BY MR. THOMPSON: No. You would reach about the temperature in the shade would be your goal. BY MS. COMPA: And humidity wise, is that also true? BY MR. THOMPSON: Humidity is similar. BY MS. COMPA: And, to your knowledge, is there an upper limit to how hot it can become on the death row tiers temperature wise? BY MR. THOMPSON: It’s subject to what’s outside, the outside temperature. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Frank Thompson, Aug. 5, 2013. B. Plaintiff Elzie Ball 21. Plaintiff Ball is sixty years old. He has been on death row for sixteen years. Currently, Ball lives in tier H, cell 5. 22. It is uncontroverted that Ball suffers from hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. To treat his hypertension and diabetes, Ball takes a variety of medications that make him more susceptible to heat-related illness. 23. It is also uncontroverted that Ball’s blood pressure is uncontrolled, and that it spikes during the summer months. It is further uncontroverted that Defendants’ staff physician, Dr. Hal David Maemurdo, M.D. (“Maemurdo”) is of the opinion that “[sjooner or later” Ball is “going to stroke out.” Trial Transcript, Testimony of Elzie Ball, Aug. 5, 2013. 24. During the trial, Ball also testified that the heat conditions in death row cause him to experience profuse sweating, swelling of his joints, hands, ankles, and keloids , tingling in his hands and feet, dizziness, lightheadedness, and headaches. Ball further testified that it is difficult to sleep at night due to the heat in the housing tier. 25. According to Ball, he copes with the heat by drinking water, lying on the cell floor, creating “cool towels” by wetting his towels or wrapping them in ice, and taking off his shirt. 26. Ball testified that he does not have direct access to the ice chest during the twenty-three hours in which he is confined his cell, and that he is dependent on other inmates, who are on their tier time, to distribute ice to him. 27. Ball also testified that the lukewarm sink water, warm showers, and fans do not provide significant relief from the heat. 28. Ball’s uncontroverted testimony was that the mounted fans occasionally break, and are not always immediately fixed by Angola’s maintenance staff. C. Plaintiff Nathaniel Code 29. Plaintiff Code is fifty-seven years old. He has been on death row for twenty-two years. Code currently lives in tier H, cell 16. 30. It is uncontroverted that Code suffers from hypertension, obesity and hepatitis. To treat his hypertension, Code takes a number of medications that make him more susceptible to heat-related illness. 31. During the trial, Code testified that during the summer months he “languishes” in the heat from sunrise until approximately 2:00 a.m. when the tier cools down. According to Code, he is subjected to direct sunlight through the window across from his cell, which prevents him from getting relief from the heat. 32. During the trial, Code testified that he avoids overheating by lying as still as possible. However, he must avoid lying in one position for too long to prevent that part of his body from getting too hot. 33. Code also testified that the heat causes him to sweat profusely, feel dizzy and light-headed, and experience headaches. He further testified that the heat conditions disturb his sleep patterns and disorient him, causing him to forget where he placed objects inside his cell. The heat conditions also cause Code to experience a “wave” over his body, which he described as a tingling sensation that moves from his feet to his head. 34. Code testified that he copes with the heat by wearing light clothing, drinking water, and creating “cool towels” by wrapping ice into his towels. 35. Code testified that he does not have direct access to the ice chest during the twenty-three hours in which he is confined to his cell, and that he is dependent on other inmates, who are on their tier time, to distribute ice to him. 36. According to Code, the lukewarm sink water, warm showers, and fans do not provide adequate relief from the heat. 37. He further testified that the vent in his cell does not work, and that Angola’s maintenance staff has yet to repair it. This testimony was not contested by Defendants. 38. According to Code, the only time he has access to air conditioned areas is when he has an attorney visit, personal visit, or when he goes to the doctor. He testified that he goes to the doctor or has an attorney or personal visit only once every two months: BY MS. MONTAGNES: ... Any visits outside of the tier. How long between visits? BY MR. CODE: Oh, okay. It’s at least two months between any of those. Even if I get some of all of them, some personal visits, doctor visits, and attorney visits, it’s at least two months between them. I can’t think of any of them being close[r] than two months. Trial Transcript, Testimony of Nathaniel Code, Aug. 5, 2013. D. Plaintiff James Magee 39. Plaintiff Magee is thirty-five years old. He has been on death row for three years. Magee lives in tier A, cell 13. 40. It is uncontroverted that Magee suffers from hypertension, high cholesterol, and depression. To treat his hypertension, high cholesterol, and depression, Ma-gee takes a variety of medications that make him more susceptible to heat-related illnesses. 41. During the trial, Magee described his housing conditions as a “sauna” in the morning and an “oven” in the afternoon. According to Magee, during the summer months, he is often hot and sweaty, experiences headaches, nausea, dizziness, lightheadedness, and has difficulty breathing and sleeping. 42. Magee testified that he tries to cope with the heat by wetting his t-shirt with the water from his cell sink, standing close to cell bars to get air from the mounted fan, and creating “cool towels.” He further testified that he attempts to cool down his cell by wiping the cell walls and floor with “cool towels.” 43. Magee testified that he does not have direct access to the ice chest during the twenty-three hours in which he is confined to his cell, and that he is dependent on other inmates, who are on their tier time, to distribute ice to him. 44. Magee further testified that the lukewarm sink water, warm showers, and fans do not provide relief from the heat. E. The Data Collected by United States Risk Management 45. Neither the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, nor any other federal court of appeals, has established a constitutionally precise temperature, humidity level, or heat index that may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Thus, this Court, like other courts, is left to establish the temperature, humidity level, heat index, and/or physical and/or medical conditions at which there has been a violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court required the parties’ to retain a neutral third-party expert to collect, analyze, and disseminate temperature, humidity, and heat index data for a period of twenty-one days. The following is a summary of the data, which shall serve as the foundation of the Court’s conclusions of law. 1. The Data Collection Period 46. On July 12, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to retain neutral third-party expert, United States Risk Management, L.L.C. (“USRM”) to collect temperature and humidity data, and calculate the heat index in the death row tiers for exactly twenty-one days. (Docs. 36, 24.) Immediately thereafter, USRM installed seven 3M QUESTempE 46 Waterless Heat Stress Monitors in tiers A, B, C, F, G, and H. USRM also installed an external weather station outside of the death row tiers to capture external “weather link” data. The USRM monitors collected data inside each of the six tiers, and outside, once per hour from July 15, 2013 through August 5, 2013 (“the data collection period”). 47. The data collected by USRM established that while the temperature, humidity, and heat index in each tier varied from day-to-day, the heat index in all of the tiers exceeded 104 degrees at various times during the data collection period. 48. Further, the data collected by USRM established that the temperature, humidity, and heat index inside the death row tiers were, more often than not, the same or higher than the temperature, humidity, and heat index recorded outside of the death row tiers. 2. Tier A 49. The data collected in tier A proved to be slightly less extreme than the other tiers. However, the temperature, humidity, and heat index data recorded in tier A nonetheless presented an alarming trend. 50. The first reading was taken on July 15, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. At that time, the monitor recorded a temperature of 84 degrees and a heat index of 89 degrees. 51. During the data collection period, the lowest recorded temperature was 80.42 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 90.68 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded heat index was 84.2 degrees while the highest recorded heat index was 104.54 degrees. 52. On each day of the collection period, the heat index rose to 92 degrees or higher. In other words, on every single day during the collection period, inmates housed in tier A were subjected to heat indices in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA”) National Weather Service’s (“NWS”) “extreme caution” zone or higher. See Exhibit 1. 53. Notably, the heat index in tier A was recorded at 100 degrees or higher on five days: July 29, July 30, August 2, August 3, and August 4, 2013. Such heat indices are in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 54. Data from tier A also showed high heat indices for extended periods of time. For example, on August 3, 2013, the heat index remained between 99.5 and 102.02 degrees for thirteen hours, or from 9:13 a.m. to 10:13 p.m. 55. As noted above, the highest heat index (104.54 degrees) was recorded on August 2, 2013. On that day, from 11:13 a.m. to 11:13 p.m., the following heat indices were consecutively recorded: 99.5, 100.4, 100.94, 101.48, 102.92, 100.4, 101.84, 102.92, 104.54,104,103.46, 101.48, 101.3, all of which are in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 56. In sum, based on the data collected in tier A, the Court concludes that the inmates housed in this tier were consistently subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” and “danger” zones, which, according to the NWS, “may cause increasingly severe heat disorders with continued exposure or physical activity.” See Exhibit 1. 3. Tier B 57. The data collected in tier B reflected higher temperatures and heat indices than in tier A. The first reading in tier B was taken on July 15, 2013 at 2:56 p.m. At that time, the recorded temperature was 83.6 degrees and the heat index was 90 degrees. 58. During the data collection period, the lowest recorded temperature was 79.52 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 90.68 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded heat index was 83.84 degrees while the highest recorded heat index was 109.94 degrees. 59. On each day of the collection period, the heat index rose to 92 degrees or higher. In other words, on every single day during the collection period, inmates housed in tier B were subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” zone or higher. See Exhibit 1. 60. Indeed, the heat index in tier B was recorded at 100 degrees or higher on ten days: July 22, July 24, July 28, July 30, July 31, August 1, August 2, August 3, August 4, and August 5, 2013. Such heat indices are in the NWS’s “extreme caution” and “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 61. High heat indices for extended periods of time were typical in tier B. For example, on July 29, 2013, the heat index remained between 98.24 and 102.2 degrees for eights hours, or from 1:23 p.m. to 9:23 p.m. On July 30, 2013, the heat index remained between 99.14 and 103.28 degrees for nine hours, or from 11:23 a.m. to 8:51 p.m. On August 1, 2013, the heat index remained between 100.4 and 103.82 degrees for eleven hours, or from 11:51 a.m. to 10:51 p.m. On August 3, the heat index remained between 100.4 and 105.08 degrees for thirteen hours, or from 8:50 a.m. to 9:50 p.m. 62. As noted above, the highest heat index (109.94 degrees) was recorded on August 2, 2013. Indeed, one of the longest periods of heat indices reaching 100 degrees or above was recorded on that day. Specifically, from 11:50 a.m. to 11:50 p.m., the following heat indices were consecutively recorded: 103.82; 104.54; 101.48; 105.8; 102.92; 102.92; 105.08; 107.42; 109.94; 104.36; 102.2; 102.2; and 103.28. 63. Based on the data collected in tier B, the Court concludes that the inmates housed in this tier were consistently, and for long periods of time over the course of multiple days, subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 4. Tier C 64. The data collected in tier C reflected higher temperatures and heat indices than in any of the other tiers. The first reading was taken on July 15, 2013 at 3:05 p.m. At that time, the recorded temperature was 86.4 degrees and the heat index was 92 degrees. 65. During the data collection period, the lowest recorded temperature was 85.1 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 92.12 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded heat index was 89.96 degrees while the highest recorded heat index was 110.3 degrees, which is well within the NWS’s “danger” zone. See Exhibit 1. 66. The data shows that the heat index in tier C rose to, and remained above, 100 degrees for two or more hours on thirteen of the twenty-one days in the collection period. 67. The Court also notes that, despite Defendants’ installation of awnings over the windows in tier C on or about July 26, 2013, the most alarming heat index figures were recorded between July 29 and August 5, 2013. For example, on July 29, the heat index remained between 99.32 and 103.46 degrees for ten hours, or from 1:16 p.m. to 11:16 p.m. On July 30, the heat index remained between 100.4 and 107.42 degrees for ten hours, or from 1:16 p.m. to 11:58 p.m. On August 1, 2013, the heat index remained between 100.04 and 106.88 degrees for fifteen consecutive hours, or from 8:58 a.m. to 11:58 p.m. The Court notes that, but for the awnings installed by Defendants over the windows in tier C, the heat indices recorded in tier C may have been higher. 68. As noted above, the highest heat index (110.3 degrees) was recorded on August 2, 2013. On that day, the heat index remained at 100 degrees or above for fifteen hours, or from 8:58 a.m. to 11:38 p.m. 69. Further, the data shows that the heat index in tier C did not drop below 100 degrees from August 3 through August 5, 2013. For example, on August 3, 2013, from 12:38 a.m. to 11:38 p.m., the following heat indices were consecutively recorded: 106.16, 106.16, 105.08, 104.54, 105.08, 104.54, 104, 102.56, 105.8, 105.8, 105.8, 104, 102.92, 102.56, 105.08, 104.54, 105.08, 107.24, 106.52, 108.32, 109.76, 105.62, 105.08, and 104. 70. This 100 + degree heat index trend continued until the last reading on August 5, 2013 at 12:22 p.m. 71. By comparison, on August 3, 2013 from 12:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., the following heat indices were recorded by the outside weather monitor: 93.4, 92.4, 90.6, 88.5, 87.6, 86.4, 82.9, 83.6, 92.6, 98.4, 98.8, 104.3, 105.5, 105Í2, 110.6, 110.8, 109.2, 109.5, 108.7,104.7, 95.3, 89.3, 86.4, and 84.3. 72.' This data established that there were multiple, consecutive hours during which inmates housed in tier C were subjected to heat indices up to twenty degrees higher than outside the housing tier. 73. Based on the data collected in tier C, the Court' concludes that the inmates housed in this tier were consistently, and for long periods of time over the course of multiple days, subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. The Court also concludes that inmates housed in tier C were subjected to heat indices up to twenty degrees higher than the heat indices recorded outside the housing tier. 5. Tier F 74. The first reading in tier F was taken on July 15, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. At that time, the recorded temperature was 81.8 degrees and the heat index was 87 degrees. 75. During the data collection period, the lowest recorded temperature was 80.2 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 91.04 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded heat index was 85 degrees while the highest recorded heat'index was 106.16 degrees. 76. On each day of the collection period, the heat index rose to 92 degrees or higher. In other words, on every single day during the collection period, inmates housed in tier F were subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” zone or higher. See Exhibit 1. 77. Notably, the heat index in tier F was recorded at 100 degrees or higher on eight days: July 17, July 29, July' 30, July 31, August 1, August 2, August 3, and August 4, 2013. Such heat indices are in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 78. Like the data collected from the other death row tiers, the data collected from tier F showed high heat indices for extended periods of time. For example, on August 1, 2013, the heat index remained between 100.4 and 105.62 degrees for eight hours, or from 2:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. On August 4, 2013, the heat index remained between 101.3 and 104.54 degrees for 8 hours, or from 12:17 p.m. to 7:17 p.m. On August 3, 2013, the heat index remained between 99.86 and 105.08 degrees for 12 hours, or from 9:32 a.m. to 9:32 p.m. 79. As noted above, the highest heat index (106.16 degrees) was recorded on August 2, 2013. The Court notes that one of the longest periods of heat indices reaching 100 degrees or above was also recorded on this day. Specifically, from 11:32 a.m. to 11:32 p.m., the following heat indices were consecutively recorded: 101.84, 102.74, 101.3, 103.46, 102.38, 100.94, 102.92, 102.92, 106.16, 103.82, 102.2, 101.3, 102.74. All of which are in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 80. Based on the data collected in tier F, the Court concludes that the inmates housed in this tier were consistently, and for long periods of time over the course of multiple days, subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 6. Tier G 81. In their submissions to the Court and during the trial on the merits, Plaintiffs argued that the heat indices in cells closest to the tier entrance are lower than the heat indices in cells at the rear of the tier, or furthest from the tier entrance. Thus, Plaintiffs allege that inmates who are assigned to cells at the rear of the tier are subjected to more extreme conditions of confinement than inmates who are assigned to cells that are close to the tier entrance. 82. To determine whether Plaintiffs’ allegations have merit, two monitors were placed in tier G: one approximately halfway down the tier in cell 8, and one at the very rear of the tier in cell 16. 83. The data collected in both cells revealed an appreciable difference in the recorded temperatures and heat indices in cell 8 versus cell 16. 84. The first reading in cell 8 was taken on July 15, 2013 at 3:25 p.m. At that time, the recorded temperature was 86.4 degrees and the heat index was 91.4 degrees. For reasons that are unknown to the Court, the first reading was not taken in cell 16 until three days later, on July 18, 2013. 85. During the data collection period, the lowest recorded temperature in cell 8 was 80.06 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 91.04 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded temperature in cell 16 was 85.46 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 91.58 degrees. 86. The lowest recorded heat index in cell 8 was 84.02 degrees while the highest recorded heat index was 107.42 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded heat index in cell 16 was 91.22 degrees while the highest recorded heat index was 110.3 degrees. 87. On each day of the collection period, the heat index rose to 93.2 degrees or higher in cell 8, and 96.44 degrees or higher in cell 16. In other words, on every single day during the collection period, inmates housed nearer to and furthest from the tier entrance were subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” zone or higher. See Exhibit 1. 88. However, as noted below, the data shows consistently higher heat indices in cell 16, as compared to cell 8. 89. According to the data collected by USRM, the heat index rose to 100 degrees or above in cell 8 on twelve days: July 22, July 23, July 24, July 26, July 29, July 30, July 31, August 1, August 2, August 3, August 4, and August 5, 2013. 90. The data also established high heat indices for extended periods of time in cell 8. For example, on August 2, 2013, the heat index remained between 101.84 and 107.42 degrees for twelve hours, or from 11:21 a.m. to 11:21 p.m. In another example, on August 3, 2013, the heat index remained between 100.4 and 105.08 degrees for fourteen hours, or from 9:21 a.m. to 11:21 p.m. 91. Even more alarming, however, are the recorded heat indices further down the tier in cell 16. 92. In cell 16, the heat index was recorded at 100 degrees or higher on fifteen consecutive days: July 21, July 22, July 24, July 25, July 26, July 27, July 28, July 29, July 30, July 31, August 1, August 2, August 3, August 4, and August 5, 2013. 93. The data collected from cell 16 also shows high heat indices for extended periods of time. For example, on five consecutive days during the data recording period (August 1-5, 2013), the heat index did not dip below 99.14 degrees. In other words, inmates assigned to cells at the rear of tier G were subjected to heat indices of 99.14 degrees or above for 120 consecutive hours, while inmates housed in cells at the front of the tier experienced lower heat indices. 94. As noted above, the highest heat index in cell 16 (110.3 degrees) was recorded on August 3, 2013. Notably, one of the longest periods of heat indices reaching 100 degrees or above was also recorded on that day. Specifically, from 12:25 a.m. to 11:25 p.m., the following heat indices were consecutively recorded: 108.68, 107.96, 106.88, 106.16, 103.46, 102.92, 102.56, 103.46, 105.08, 106.34,, 109.4, 105.8, 107.42, 104.54, 105.08, 103.46, 104, 104.54, 105.98, 107.24, 110.3, 106.88, 105.62, and 105.08. 95. By comparison, on August 3, 2013 from 12:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., the following heat indices were recorded by the outside weather monitor: 93.4, 92.4, 90.6, 88.5, 87.6, 86.4, 82.9, 83.6, 92.6, 98.4, 98.8, 104.3, 105.5, 105.2, 110.6, 110.8, 109.2, 109.5, 108.7,104.7, 95.3, 89.3, 86.4, 84.3. 96. This data established that there were multiple, consecutive hours during which the inmates housed in cells at that rear of tier G were subjected to heat indices that were up to twenty degrees higher than the heat indices recorded outside of the death row facility. 97. Based on the data collected in tier G, the Court concludes that the inmates housed in this tier were consistently, and for long periods of time over the course of multiple days, subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. The Court notes that, but for the awnings installed by Defendants over the windows in tier G on or about July 26, 2013, such temperatures and heat index recordings may have been higher. 98. Based on the data collected in tier G, the Court further concludes that inmates who are housed in cells at the rear of the respective housing tiers, or furthest away from the tier entrance, are subjected to more extreme conditions of confinement than inmates who are housed in cells closer to the entrance of each respective tier. 7. Tier H 99. The data collected from tier H reveals slightly lower temperatures and heat indices than tiers C and G. However, as noted below, during the undersigned’s tour of tier H, the undersigned noted that the tier is partially shaded by another tier. 100. The first reading was taken in this tier on July 15, 2018 at 3:32 p.m. At that time, the recorded temperature was 82.1 degrees and the heat index was 87 degrees. 101. During the data collection period, the lowest recorded temperature was 78.26 degrees while the highest recorded temperature was 92.66 degrees. In contrast, the lowest recorded heat index was 81.5 degrees while the highest recorded heat index was 107.78 degrees. 102. On each day of the collection period, the heat index rose to 90 degrees or higher. In other words, on every single day during the collection period, inmates housed in tier H were subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “caution” or “very warm” zone (hereinafter “caution” zone) or higher. See Exhibit 1. 103. The data also shows that the heat index rose to 100 degrees or higher on seven consecutive days: July 29, July 30, July 31, August 1, August 2, August 3, and August 4, 2013. 104. The data further established high heat indices for extended periods of time. For example, on August 1, 2013, the heat index remained between 99.32 and 105.08 degrees for nine hours, or from 1:41 to 10:41 p.m. On August 3, 2013, the heat index remained between 99.5 and 104.54 degrees for nine hours, or from 1:43 to 10:43 p.m. 105. As noted above, the highest heat index (107.78 degrees) was recorded on August 2, 2013. Notably, one of the longest periods of heat indices reaching 100 degrees or above was also recorded on this day, and the following morning. Specifically, from 12:43 p.m. on August 2 to 1:43 a.m. on August 3, the following heat indices were consecutively recorded: 101.3, 100.94, 104, 104, 103.64, 105.44, 107.78, 107.42, 104.54, 102.92, 100.76, 102.2, 100.4, 100.4. Such heat indices fall squarely within the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 106. Although the data collected from tier H is less alarming than the data collected from tiers C and G, based on the data, the Court concludes that the inmates housed in this tier were also consistently, and for long periods of time over the course of multiple days, subjected to heat indices in the NWS’s “extreme caution” or “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 107. In sum, the data collected by USRM during the data collection period unequivocally established that inmates housed in each of the death row tiers are consistently, and for long periods of time, subjected to high temperatures and heat indices in the NWS’s “caution,” “extreme caution,” and “danger” zones. See Exhibit 1. 108. The data also established that inmates in at least two of the tiers are frequently subjected to heat indices that are up to twenty degrees higher than the heat indices recorded outside the death row facility. 109. Further, the data established that inmates who are housed in cells at the rear of the respective housing tiers, or furthest away from the tier entrance, are subjected to more extreme conditions of confinement than inmates who are housed in cells closer to the entrance of each respective tier. F. The Court’s Observation of the Death Row Tiers 110. On August 12, 2013 from approximately 2:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., the undersigned observed Angola’s death row facility, including the administrative offices, visitation rooms, control center, and housing tiers A, C, G, and H. Counsel for both parties, as well as Defendant Norwood, accompanied the undersigned during the site visit. 111. During the undersigned’s tour of the death row facility, which was conducted after the data collection period, the Court made factual observations which support the Court’s findings of fact. 112. Approximately one and one half hour before the undersigned’s tour, Angola, Louisiana and the surrounding areas sustained thunderstorms and heavy rain. By 2:15 p.m., the thunderstorms and rain had ceased. However, the sky was densely overcast and the temperature had noticeably decreased from a high of 91 degrees at 12:42 p.m. 113. During the site visit, the Court observed that despite the decreased outside temperature and overcast sky, the temperature inside the housing tiers was appreciably higher than the temperature outside. For example, according to Defendants’ mercury-in-glass thermometers, the temperature in tiers A, C, G, and H were 88 degrees, 89 degrees, 94 degrees, and 89 degrees, respectively. However, weather data collected from the closest weather station indicates that the outside weather temperature was only 77 degrees at 2:00 p.m. 114. The Court also observed that tier H is shaded by one of the other housing tiers. 115. The Court also observed the windows, fans, and cell vents in tiers A, C, G, and H. In the Court’s observation, the windows, fans, and cell vents did not provide a cooling effect or relief from the heat conditions in the tier. 116. During the site visit, the undersigned detected the cool air that blew into the tiers from the central corridor each time a tier entrance was opened. The Court noted that cool air could be detected for the few seconds that a tier entrance remained open, while standing near the entrance of the tier, but that the cool air could not be detected while standing at the rear of the tier. 117. While the Court did not attempt to measure the temperature of the cold and hot water from the in-cell faucets, the undersigned noted that the cold water was lukewarm to the touch. 118. The Court further observed that although each fan was positioned to be shared by two cells, the fans did not provide equal amounts of air flow to each cell. 119. The undersigned did not observe dirt, debris, or insects in the ice chests or in the water from the in-cell faucets. 120. The Court observed, however, that the walls of the housing tiers were hot to the touch, and that the security bars separating the cells from the tier walkway were very warm to the touch. VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1. “Section 1983 imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person ‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’ ... [T]his provision [also] safeguards certain rights conferred by federal statutes.” Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997) (citing Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980)). 2. Here, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim is that Defendants have subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States “by reason of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 675, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962). 3. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that by subjecting them to “extreme conditions of confinement, specifically excessive heat, with full knowledge of the dangerousness of those conditions, Defendants [ ] are acting and have acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ serious health and safety needs, in violation of their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (Doc 1, ¶¶ 12, 67-68.) 1. The Eighth Amendment 4. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend. VIII. 5. It is well settled that the United States Constitution does not require comfortable prisons. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). However, it is equally well established that conditions of confinement “must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392. 6. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires that prisoners be afforded “humane conditions of confinement,” including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970; Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332 (5th Cir.2004) (holding that a prison official’s obligation includes “ensuring] that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care,” as well as “reasonable measure[s] to ensure the safety of the inmates”). 7. Thus, “[t]he treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” Gates, 376 F.3d at 332; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (“[C]onditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need.”). 8. Such “conditions of confinement” that are subject to review include temperature conditions. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303, 111 S.Ct. 2321 (stating that “the temperature [a prisoner] is subjected to in his cell” is “a condition of his confinement”) (quotation marks omitted); Gates, 376 F.3d at 333 (same). 9. An Eighth Amendment claim has two components. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321. 10. First, the deprivation alleged must be sufficiently serious. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321. “[0]nly those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities’ are sufficiently grave” to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id. (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347,101 S.Ct. 2392). 11. A court must measure a prison’s conditions against “ ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,’ and not the standards in effect during the time of the drafting of the Eighth Amendment.” Gates, 376 F.3d at 332-33 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). Further, the Supreme Court of the United States has noted that “the length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets the constitutional standards. A filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of ‘grue’ might be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or months.” Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d. 522 (1978). 12. Second, the prison official must have acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838, 114 S.Ct. 1970; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 305, 111 S.Ct. 2321. In condition of confinement cases, the Court is required to determine if the prison official acted with deliberate indifference, which the Supreme Court has defined as knowing of and disregarding an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 836, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (“It is, indeed, fair to say that acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is the equivalent of recklessly disregarding that risk.”). 13. Thus, to demonstrate that prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must meet the following requirements: (1) an objective requirement showing that the condition is “so serious as to ‘deprive prisoners of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’ as when it denies the prisoner some basic human need;” and (2) a subjective requirement, which mandates a showing that prison officials have been “‘deliberately indifferent’ to inmate health or safety.” Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970). a. The Conditions of Confinement at Angola’s Death Row Constitute a Substantial Risk of Serious Harm to Plaintiffs 14. It is axiomatic that a prison official’s failure to provide inmates relief from extreme temperatures may constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304, 111 S.Ct. 2321 (“low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets” could constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 381 (5th Cir.1977) (“If the proof shows the occurrence of extremes of temperature that are likely to be injurious to inmates’ health relief should be granted.... ”); Blackmon v. Garza, 484 Fed.Appx. 866, 869 (5th Cir.2012) (unpublished) (“Allowing a prisoner to be exposed to extreme temperatures can constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment.”); Valigura v. Mendoza, 265 Fed.Appx. 232, 235 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (“[Tjemperatures consistently in the nineties without remedial measures, such as fans, ice water, and showers, sufficiently increase the probability of death and serious illness so as to violate the Eighth Amendment”). 15. Further, the Fifth Circuit has held that “extreme heat” coupled with a failure to provide cooling devices such as “fans, ice water, and daily showers” is a “condition [that] presents a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmates,” particularly where such conditions are “open and obvious,” and where “inmates ha[ve] complained of symptoms of heat-related illness.” Gates, 376 F.3d at 339-40 (determining that an Eighth Amendment violation justified an “injunction directing the Mississippi Department of Corrections] to provide fans, ice water, and daily showers when the heat index is 90 degrees or above, or alternatively to make such provisions during the months of May through September”) (emphasis added). 16. A survey of the opinions from various Circuit Courts of Appeals reveals that other courts have also recognized that a prison official’s failure to provide relief from extremely high temperatures may constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 126 (2d Cir.2013) (“[I]t is well settled that exposing prisoners to extreme temperatures without adequate ventilation may violate the Eighth Amendment.”); Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2010) (“The district court did not err ... in concluding that dangerously high temperatures that pose a significant risk to detainee health violate the Eighth Amendment.”); Chand