context: . While some courts have found that the relevant comparison under Sandin is between the specific deprivations imposed on the plaintiff and the deprivations imposed in the non-disciplinary confinement'area of prisons in the entire state, neither the Supreme Court in Sandin nor the Second Circuit has required such a basis of comparison, relying instead on a comparison between disciplinary and non-disciplinary confinement conditions within the plaintiff's institution.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: comparing plaintiff's deprivations in SHU with those of the general prison population within the Hala-wa Correctional facility where plaintiff was housed when the challenged disciplinary confinement was imposed
citation_a.sentence: See Sandin, supra, at 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (comparing plaintiff’s deprivations in SHU with those of the general prison population within the Hala-wa Correctional facility where plaintiff was housed when the challenged disciplinary confinement was imposed); Brooks, supra, at 48 (district court erred in not comparing conditions of disciplinary confinement with those of administrative confinement or the "prison at large"); Frazier, supra, at 317 (it is the inmate’s burden to show that the conditions of confinement in SHU are dramatically different from the basic conditions of his indeterminate sentence).
citation_b.signal: contra
citation_b.identifier: 128 F.3d 1173, 1175
citation_b.parenthetical: relevant comparison to "most restrictive confine ment found in any facility in entire state"
citation_b.sentence: Contra Wagner v. Hanks, 128 F.3d 1173, 1175 (7th Cir.1997) (relevant comparison to "most restrictive confine ment found in any facility in entire state”); McClary v. Kelly, 4 F.Supp.2d 195, 201 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) (relevant comparison to maximum security facilities in entire state).