00-4145 Delany v. DeTella, et al.

Listen to this article

“Here, both in duration and severity, the nature of Delaney’s alleged deprivation was significant and serious, and apparently no alternatives were made available to mitigate the effects of the deprivation. We recently noted that segregation is akin to solitary confinement and that such confinement, uninterrupted by opportunities for out-of-cell exercise ‘could reasonably be described as cruel and, by reference to the current norms of American prisons, unusual.’ Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 884 (7th Cir.2001). Except for limited calisthenics inside his small cell, the defendants do not argue that Delaney had any other recreational alternatives or access to common areas which may have mitigated the severity of a 6-month denial of yard privileges. See Harris, 839 F.2d at 1236 (no serious deprivation where segregated inmate retained ability to move freely through unit and could improvise exercise regimen); Shelby, 798 F.2d at 1089 (no violation where prisoners had access to common area exercise bikes). Here, for 6 months, Delaney remained in a cell the size of a phone booth without any meaningful chance to exercise.”

“While there may in certain cases be legitimate penological reasons justifying an extended denial of exercise privileges, here none are presented. Citing the lockdown, the defendants merely say, in conclusory fashion, that allowing inmates yard time for exercise would pose a ‘potential security threat.’ This unsupported statement is insufficient. Given the length of this exercise restriction, the state defendants should have, but didn’t, advance any legitimate penological need for denying all forms of outside exercise.”

“As early as 1986 – 10 years before this lockdown was instituted – we held that a lack of exercise could rise to a constitutional violation. French, 777 F.2d 1250, 1255. Then in 1988 we decided Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, arising from this same segregation unit. We upheld the district court’s injunction requiring Stateville officials to provide segregated inmates ‘with at least five hours of exercise time per week in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment.’ Id. at 1315. … Thus, years before the lockdown at issue here was instituted, the case law clearly established that extended denials of exercise privileges raised constitutional concerns. In light of Davenport and Anderson, it was objectively unreasonable for prison officials to institute a complete 6 month denial of all out-of-cell exercise privileges for segregated prisoners.”

Affirmed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Coar, J., Evans, J.