139 S. Ct. 5
SCOTUS2018Background
- Petitioners Jonathan Apodaca, Joshua Vigil, and Donnie Lowe were held in Colorado State Penitentiary administrative segregation (solitary confinement) with cells and an exercise room each ~90 sq ft; inmates were out of cell ~1 hour in that room, 5 days/week under earlier CDOC rules.
- Apodaca and Vigil alleged they were denied any out-of-cell exercise other than that indoor exercise room for 11 months; Lowe alleged a similar deprivation for 25 months (and had a much longer prior history in segregation).
- They sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment violations (cruel and unusual punishment); district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss; the Tenth Circuit reversed those denials.
- Petitioners sought certiorari arguing the Tenth Circuit diverged from other circuits that require a strong security justification to permit prolonged denial of outdoor exercise.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Justice Sotomayor filed a statement concurring in the denial, expressing deep concern about long-term deprivation of outdoor exercise and solitary confinement’s psychological harms, but explaining the record and briefing were inadequate to reach the broader constitutional question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prolonged denial of any outdoor exercise in solitary can violate the Eighth Amendment | Such prolonged denial (11–25 months) of outdoor exercise is cruel and unusual given known physical/psychological harms | Denial was justified by prison management/security considerations; qualified immunity defenses asserted | Certiorari denied; Sotomayor: issue is serious and likely unconstitutional absent a compelling security justification, but record here is underdeveloped so Court declined review |
| Whether absence of a specific, strong security justification bars liability | Plaintiffs: courts generally require an adequate security justification to sustain prolonged deprivation | Defendants: asserted security concerns and raised qualified immunity (for some claims) | Sotomayor stressed other circuits require compelling security justifications; but here facts about security rationale were not presented sufficiently for Supreme Court review |
| Whether petitioners’ factual record supported Eighth Amendment claim | Plaintiffs alleged severe, extended deprivation of outdoor exercise causing obvious risk to well-being | Defendants challenged sufficiency and raised immunity defenses | Lower courts disagreed; Tenth Circuit allowed reasonable debate; Supreme Court denied review due to undeveloped factual record |
| Whether officials are entitled to qualified immunity | Plaintiffs: deprivation violated clearly established Eighth Amendment rights | Defendants: claimed qualified immunity (and in Lowe’s case did not contest Eighth violation but asserted immunity) | Supreme Court did not resolve immunity; cert denied, so immunity questions unresolved at SCOTUS level |
Key Cases Cited
- Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) (Eighth Amendment cruelty can be nonphysical and evolving)
- In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890) (early recognition of severe mental harm from solitary confinement)
- Anderson v. Colorado, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Colo. 2012) (description of CSP administrative segregation conditions)
- Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding long-term denial of outdoor exercise unconstitutional absent adequate justification)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (recognizing obvious risk from prolonged deprivation of outdoor exercise)
- Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding extended deprivation of outdoor exercise can present excessive risk)
- Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651 (10th Cir. 1987) (noting importance of regular outdoor exercise to inmate well-being)