Although this might sound like a stay at a Soviet gulag in the 1930s,

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Stripped naked in a small prison
cell with nothing except a toilet; forced to sleep on a
concrete floor or slab; denied any human contact; fed
nothing but “nutri-loaf”; and given just a modicum of
toilet paper—four squares—only a few times. Although this
might sound like a stay at a Soviet gulag in the 1930s, it is,
according to the claims in this case, Wisconsin in 2002.
Whether these conditions are, as a matter of law, only
“uncomfortable, but not unconstitutional” as the
State contends, is the issue we consider in this case.

snip

Nathan Gillis alleges in this case, brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, that his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution were
violated while he was a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure
Program Facility at Boscobel.
The district court granted summary judgment for the
defendants and Gillis appeals, raising two important issues.
He contends there is a genuine issue of material fact
precluding summary judgment both as to whether a
(BMP) imposed on him for
an infraction of the rules constituted cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and
whether the deprivation he suffered under the BMP was an
atypical and significant hardship, thus implicating his due
process rights.

snip, (Note, "summary judgment" means he lost at trial without a trial, which means the prison won without a trial. Nice, eh? He's lucky he could file habeas corpus at all, and what did he do to get sentenced to a "Behavioral Modification Program," the isolation prison within a prison?)

The rule requires that inmates sleep with their heads toward
the back of the cell (and the toilet). Gillis slept with his
head toward the front of the cell and on occasion covered his
head.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/11/seventh_circuit_2.html


http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/Y01AI3XZ.pdf">The Court's opinion (PDF)

These are constitutional violations BECAUSE WE SAY SO!! You gotta love Failed State constitutionalism....lol.

The guy filed his case for trial and said it was cruel and and usual punishment and a violation of the 14th Amendment. The judge said, "No it's not!" and gave the prison summary judgment. He appealed, and this is the appeal.

Here is this ruling from this deicsion:

But our
reluctance does not mean we can avoid our obligation to
carefully evaluate constitutional claims, such as this one. In
addition, we question how much this particular case will
affect the administration of the prisons. It is unclear what
exactly the status of the BMP program is at Supermax.
Gillis contends that the policy “is currently in effect.
. . . Inmates continue to be denied a hearing prior to
placement on BMP.” Defendants, with notable ambiguity,
say that “lthough the policy may still be in effect, the
BMP program is no longer used” at Supermax.
The judgment of the district court is VACATED and this
case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.

So he won the appeal and the Constitutional issues must be heard. Even if the BMP policy is no longer used, which is doubtful, they are using something and they were using the BMP. So we know what kind torture goes on in our own prisons.

EDIT: So this was an appeal from the state of Wisconsin's courts to federal court, and the Federal court ruled against the state court and said the man has grounds for a hearing, and the state must give him one.

I misunderstood. Sorry and thanks.

But that's why the politicians have the advantage.