including the supervisory defendants, did not intend to punish the plaintiffs, the court finds that the effects of isolation are not “but an incident of a legitimate non-punitive governmental objective.” Bell, 441 U.S. at 539 n. 20, 99 S.Ct. 1861. Defendants’ practices are, at best, an excessive, and there fore unconstitut campaign of harassment based on their sexual orientation that included threats of violence, physical and sexual assault, imposed social isolation, and near constant use of homophobic slurs. This level of harassment and abuse in a juvenile facility, where the wards have not been convicted of crimes and are committed to the care of the state, falls below the minimum level of care required by the Due Process Clause. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315-16, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs presented substantial evidence
holding that mentally retarded individuals who are involuntarily committed to a state institution have a constitutional right to reasonably safe conditions of confinement under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment because pjersons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish holding that 12 days of prehearing confinement in the shu did not implicate a statecreated liberty interest holding that punitive conditions of pretrial confinement implicate due process recognizing a liberty interest in reasonably safe conditions of confinement holding that placing a prisoner in disciplinary confinement clearly effects liberty interest