will violate the law.” Id.; see also United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (“[A] general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question, even though the very act in question has not previously been held unlawful.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, the plaintiffs seek redress for the defendants’ failure to maintain reasonably adequate, non-toxic, and sanitary means to dispose of human waste. The right to “adequate and hygienic means to dispose of [a prisoner’s] bodily wastes” was clearly established at the time of the violation, which began, with respect to Bissonnette and Grelotti, in 1991. Strachan v. Ashe, 548 F.Supp. 1193, 1205 (D.Mass.1982) (<HOLDING>). Although I can find no First Circuit
holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established holding prisoners had no clearly established right to privacy in medical records in 1995 holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right holding in 1982 that the right was clearly established by at least 1979