were officially off, however, Bacon alleged that they were turned on for 15 minutes to distribute medication and again for more than 2 hours (4:45 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.) when the inmates were taken to the dining area for breakfast. Other circuits have held that the constitutional requirement of adequate shelter for an inmate includes the provision of adequate lighting. See Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir.1985). Further, courts have noted that “[t]here is no legitimate penological justification for requiring [inmates] to suffer physical and psychological harm by living in constant illumination.” LeMaire v. Maass, 745 F.Supp. 623, 636 (D.Or.1990), vacated on other grounds by 12 F.3d 1444, 1458-59 (9th Cir.1993); see also Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Bacon, on the other hand, has not alleged
holding that an allegation that large florescent lights directly in front of and behind an inmates cell shone into his cell 24 hours a day so that his cell was constantly illuminated and he had no way of telling night or day and that this condition caused him grave sleeping problems and other mental and psychological problems was sufficient to state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment holding that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved holding that a cruel and unusual punishment claim is not jurisdictional and therefore may not be raised for the first time on appeal holding that a punishment of 27 days of commissary and cell restrictions was not de minimis