here certainly is covered by state tort law, the other examples the majority posits that may violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution but may not be covered by tort law are inapposite. In any event, I am not convinced that any of these acts— denying a prisoner access to a toilet and thus exposing the prisoner to human waste for thirty-six hours, depriving a prisoner of basic necessities, completely depriving a prisoner of outdoor exercise for a period of years, and exposing a prisoner to other unhygienic conditions— would not be covered by tort law. Rather, each act involves a clear breach of the duty of reasonable care and would unreasonably jeopardize a prisoner’s health. See Irabor v. Perry County Corr. Ctr., No. 06-0483-BH-C, 2008 WL 1929965, at *2-3 (S.D.Ala. Apr.30, 2008) (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Owsley, 422 S.W.2d 39, 43 (Mo.1967)
holding that deprivation of personal property does not violate the constitution if there are adequate state remedies available holding that as a matter of equal protection the state must provide indigent defendants with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal when those tools are available for a price to other defendants holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that a plaintiff had adequate state tort remedies available to redress the denial of basic necessities such as socks toilet paper and soap holding that defendant had adequate alternatives in judicial and administrative remedies to the course he took