Elder v. Bass: Chronic Sanitation Failures as a Per Se Eighth-Amendment Violation in the Fifth Circuit

Introduction

Elder v. Bass (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025) addresses whether prolonged and recurring loss of water and sewerage services in a jail rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Glen Elder, a prisoner at the Tensas Parish Detention Center (TPDC) in Louisiana, sued Warden Nolen Bass, Assistant Warden Johnson, and Waterproof Mayor Jarrob Bottley under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Elder alleged that for ten months the facility’s water system repeatedly failed for days or weeks, forcing roughly eighty inmates, including himself, to defecate into plastic bags which were then collected, stored, and sometimes burned on site. The district court dismissed the complaint as “frivolous” and for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed in part, holding that Elder plausibly alleged an Eighth-Amendment violation by Bass and Johnson, though not by Bottley. Crucially, the panel articulated that chronic, recurring sanitation failures—as opposed to fleeting plumbing glitches—can independently satisfy the objective prong of an Eighth-Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The district court’s dismissal was vacated and remanded as to Warden Bass and Assistant Warden Johnson.
2. The dismissal was affirmed as to Mayor Jarrob Bottley for lack of factual allegations.
3. The Fifth Circuit held that Elder’s detailed allegations—recurrent water shut-offs, storage of human waste where prisoners ate and bathed, days-to-weeks duration, and failures to supply potable water—plausibly alleged both: (i) an objectively serious deprivation of the basic human need for sanitation, and
(ii) defendants’ subjective deliberate indifference. 4. The Court distinguished mere “temporary plumbing problems” (Holloway v. Gunnell) from systemic, repetitive breakdowns creating an ongoing biohazard.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. 7 (2020): Supreme Court’s per curiam reversal recognizing “shockingly unsanitary” cells as an obvious Eighth-Amendment violation even without a prior case on point. The panel relied on Taylor to emphasize that egregious sanitation failures need no further factual development at screening.
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974): Early Fifth-Circuit authority holding that deprivation of hygiene facilities can violate the Eighth Amendment. Cited to show longstanding recognition of sanitation as a “basic human need.”
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991): Introduced the two-prong (objective/subjective) framework for conditions-of-confinement claims; the panel applied this structure.
Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1982): Distinguished; two-day plumbing outage insufficient. By juxtaposing Holloway with Elder’s weeks-long outages, the Court clarified the boundary between temporary discomfort and constitutional violation.
Robertson v. Bass, No. 24-30395, 2025 WL 416994 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2025): Unpublished case involving the same jail. Elder’s allegations mirrored those in Robertson; the Court treated the two decisions as mutually reinforcing “sister precedents.”
Alexander v. TDCJ, 951 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2020) & Garrett v. Lumpkin, 96 F.4th 896 (5th Cir. 2024): Articulated the deliberate-indifference standard and clarified that risk of serious harm is sufficient; actual injury is not required.

Legal Reasoning

The panel conducted de novo review because the lower court relied on both § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Under Wilson v. Seiter they asked:

Objective prong: Were the conditions “so serious as to deprive [the inmate] of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”?
Subjective prong: Did defendants know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm?

Objective Analysis. Drawing from Taylor, Gates, and Robertson, the Court held that sanitation is a core human need. It emphasised three aggravating factors which, in combination, made the deprivation actionable per se:

Frequency and duration: shut-offs persisted for days and weeks at a time repeatedly over ten months.
Concentration of human waste: inmate excrement was stored in communal showers and around meal areas.
Lack of mitigation: TPDC provided neither alternative toilet facilities nor adequate bottled water.

Subjective Analysis. Elder alleged multiple grievances and direct communications with Bass and Johnson, plus their active involvement in implementing the plastic-bag system and burning waste on site. This sufficed to plead that the officials both knew of and chose not to correct the risk. No facts tied Mayor Bottley to daily operations, so claims against him failed.

Impact of the Decision

1. Clarifies the “temporary problem” safe-harbor. Prior Fifth-Circuit dicta suggested that short-lived plumbing failures might never be unconstitutional. Elder stakes out a clear rule: when outages are recurring or prolonged, the objective prong is met.

2. Reinforces Taylor v. Riojas within the Circuit. After Taylor, some district courts still dismissed unsanitary-conditions claims at screening, citing need for more facts. Elder confirms that egregious sanitation allegations survive § 1915 review.

3. Administrative ramifications for Louisiana jails. Facilities with chronic infrastructure failures must now prioritize repairs, supply portable toilets, or face liability.

4. National persuasive authority. Although binding only in the Fifth Circuit, the decision will likely be cited elsewhere because sanitation failures in aging local jails are ubiquitous.

5. Litigation strategy. Plaintiffs can plead duration, frequency, and official awareness to cross the § 1915 pleading threshold.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Eighth Amendment: Part of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments.” In prison litigation, it governs basic living conditions.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Federal statute allowing individuals to sue state actors for constitutional violations.
Conditions-of-Confinement Claim: Allegation that overall living conditions (food, sanitation, safety) fall below constitutional standards.
Deliberate Indifference: A prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; a higher culpability than negligence.
Objective vs. Subjective Prongs: The Court first looks at how bad conditions are (objective), then at what defendants knew and did (subjective).
In Forma Pauperis (IFP): Permission to file a lawsuit without prepaying fees, subject to court screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Conclusion

Elder v. Bass cements within the Fifth Circuit a bright-line principle: when sanitation failures are chronic, pervasive, and known to prison officials, they automatically satisfy the objective element of an Eighth-Amendment conditions claim. The ruling narrows the “temporary-plumbing” defense, aligns lower courts with Taylor v. Riojas, and puts correctional administrators on notice that repeated deprivation of water and toilet access is unconstitutional, regardless of whether inmates can show physical injury. As infrastructure in many detention facilities continues to age, Elder is poised to influence both litigation strategy and institutional policy far beyond Tensas Parish.