but refuse to do anything about it.”); Aff. of Harry Seymour, Nov. 30, 1992 ("It is my observation that throughout the institution that there is a continuous covering over of filth and dirt, rather than a unified regimen of daily house keeping and cleaning. My observation is that policy is to let area go uncleaned and paint over it when it looks bad or when outside people are touring the area.”); Aff. of James Doane, Mar. 26, 1993 (recounting his efforts, over the course of four days, to replace a broken Pak-A-Pottie and stating that he was told there were none available). 10 . I respectfully suggest that, in making that decision, the Superior Court failed to follow the sequential rule in cases alleging constitutional violations. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (<HOLDING>); see also Fabiano, 352 F.3d at 453 (holding
holding that the question of qualified immunity dovetails with the substantial inquiry in a  1983 action in that both depend on the specific contours of the constitutional right at issue holding that the initial inquiry for a court called upon to rule upon the qualified immunity issue is whether the facts alleged show the violation of a constitutional right holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that the threshold inquiry assuming as true the facts alleged by the injured party is whether the officers conduct violated a constitutional right holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right