his arguments from the first two claims and to elaborate on the way in which the CDOC’s policies deny prisoners funds to purchase hygiene items and forced his choice between hygiene and litigation. It is not a claim separate from his first two claims. See Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1292 (10th Cir.2006) (noting that this Court construes a pro se complaint liberally)- Indeed, Mr. Whitington’s focus elsewhere in the complaint on the dental harm he suffered is logically included not to allege a separate claim, but to satisfy his obligation to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. A deprivation of hygiene items without any corresponding injury would not state an Eighth Amendment violation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d
holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk holding that prison officials will not be found liable under the eighth amendment unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health holding that a prison official may be held liable under the eighth amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene holding that mere knowledge of a defect is not sufficient to amount to an eighth amendment claim defendant must also draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious harm exists