located in the record at Exhibit B, Aff. of Judith Buckley Hayman, Docket No. 184. Unless otherwise stated, any mention of Langton is meant to refer to the Superior Court’s "Memorandum of Decision,” and will employ the pagination of the copy found in the Hayman Affidavit. 6 . Bissonnette was referring to the order in the Langton, which I will discuss in more detail later. 7 . Bissonnette has made an effort to show that, notwithstanding the obviousness of the sanitation problems at SECC and her regular assessment of the physical condition of the institution, she was unaware of any risk posed by the chemical toilets, because no one complained about the problem. That response, however, will only go so far in establishing absence of knowledge. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 848-49, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, as I pointed out previously, it
holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that prisoner must show prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prison conditions to establish an eighth amendment violation holding in a failuretoprotect case that an inmate need not have complained to prison officials about being in danger and noting that a plaintiff may establish awareness by relying on any relevant evidence