4th Circuit partially affirms denial of out-of-cell exercise claim at South Carolina prison

Listen to this article

Genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether prison officials violated Appellant’s Eighth Amendment right to humane conditions of confinement by denying him out-of-cell exercise for extended periods.

We affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment in a civil rights action.

Appellant inmate was incarcerated at the Kirkland Correctional Institution Reception and Evaluation Center in South Carolina on two separate occasions, each lasting about five months. During both periods, institutional policy required individuals undergoing intake evaluation to remain almost entirely confined to their cells, leaving only for showers, medical appointments, or phone calls. The policy barred all out-of-cell exercise because prison officials believed allowing unclassified inmates to intermingle would pose safety risks. Instead, inmates received a pamphlet describing exercises that could be performed inside their cells.

Appellant, however, suffered from serious physical disabilities stemming from prior injuries and surgeries that left him with metal rods, plates, and pins in his legs and feet. He required rehabilitative exercise but could not perform the in-cell exercises due to his limited mobility and the cramped conditions of his cell, which had less than 25 square feet of usable space and housed multiple inmates. During his two stays at Kirkland, totaling 324 days, Appellant was never permitted to leave his cell for exercise. He repeatedly filed grievances and requests seeking permission to exercise outside his cell, explaining that the restrictions worsened his medical conditions and mental health. Prison officials repeatedly denied the requests and directed him to the pamphlet.

Proceeding pro se, Appellant sued several Kirkland officials and the Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment based on denial of out-of-cell exercise, inadequate medical care, and overcrowding. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, Appellant challenged only the dismissal of his claim regarding deprivation of out-of-cell exercise.

We held Appellant produced sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact on whether the exercise deprivation was objectively serious and whether the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference. Prisoners generally must be given some regular opportunity for out-of-cell exercise absent exceptional circumstances. Appellant’s evidence, including the length of the deprivation, his disabilities, the cramped cells, and the physical and psychological harm he allegedly suffered, could allow a reasonable jury to find an Eighth Amendment violation. We also rejected the officials’ qualified immunity defense, concluding that the right to regular exercise, including out-of-cell exercise, was clearly established.

However, we affirmed summary judgment for the corrections director. Appellant failed to present evidence that the director had actual or constructive knowledge that the policy created a widespread risk of constitutional injury, which is necessary to establish supervisory liability under §1983.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Bolick v. Anderson (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-095-26, 20 pp.) (Nicole G. Berner, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Orangeburg (Robert Bryan Harwell, J.) ARGUED: Zoe Terner, DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian Craig Mauldin, DAVIDSON & WREN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Richard B. Katskee, Michael DeLuca, Gabriela Nagle Alverio, DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. William H. Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & WREN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit