conditions violate an inmate’s constitutional rights. See Hubbard, 538 F.3d at 233 (stating that in determining whether triple-celling of inmates is rationally related to the state’s interest in managing an overcrowded prison, “we do not assay separately each of the institutional practices, but [instead] look to the totality of the conditions”) (quoting Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 160 (3d Cir.2005) (Hubbard I) (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, the City’s assertion that the Third Circuit applied the totality of the circumstances approach to each individual inmate has no support in the text of the case and is belied by the fact that the Third Circuit applied this approach to a group of 40 plaintiffs in Hubbard rather than to each plaintiff individually. See id. at 235 (<HOLDING>). Were we to accept the City’s interpretation
holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances holding that the odor of marijuana is still a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis holding that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is not within the range of conditions of confinement to which a prison sentence subjects an individual holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule holding that based on totality of circumstances plaintiffs were not subject to unconstitutional conditions of confinement no separate analysis undertaken for each individual plaintiffs ease