McCray v. Lee, 963 F.3d 110

Background

Plaintiff Lionel McCray, a New York State prisoner at Green Haven during winter 2013–2014, was on keeplock and permitted one hour of daily exercise only in outdoor yards.
Superintendent William Lee adopted a facility policy not to remove naturally accumulating snow and ice from outdoor exercise yards for the entire winter; Facility Watch Commander William Plimley implemented that policy.
The policy led to yard closures, severe snow/ice accumulation (much waist-high), overcrowding of remaining yards, and an alleged four-month deprivation of any meaningful opportunity for physical exercise.
On February 20, 2014, Sergeant Kutz ordered inmates into an uncleared yard; McCray slipped on concealed ice and suffered permanent ankle and shoulder injuries.
McCray sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief; the district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state an Eighth Amendment claim), granted qualified immunity, and held injunctive claims moot after McCray’s transfer.
The Second Circuit vacated dismissal of McCray’s Eighth Amendment damages claim for denial of exercise as to Lee and Plimley (and reinstated state-law claims), affirmed dismissal of the slip‑and‑fall Eighth Amendment claims and injunctive claims, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a four‑month denial of meaningful exercise states an Eighth Amendment claim for damages	McCray: refusal to clear snow/ice deprived him of exercise for four months and thus violated the Eighth Amendment	Defendants: restrictions were temporary/weather‑related; no constitutional violation alleged	Held: Yes as to damages against Lee and Plimley — complaint plausibly alleged denial of a meaningful opportunity for exercise; remanded
Whether being ordered into an icy yard and slipping states an Eighth Amendment conditions‑of‑confinement claim	McCray: Kutz’s order into the yard created an unconstitutional risk causing injury	Defendants: slip‑and‑fall is a commonplace risk and not an Eighth Amendment violation absent exceptional circumstances	Held: Dismissed — court affirmed that the facts alleged did not show an Eighth Amendment violation for the slip‑and‑fall
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the exercise‑deprivation claim	McCray: the right to some opportunity for exercise was clearly established; officials should have known refusal to clear yards violated that right	Defendants: no clearly established right to a yard without naturally accumulating ice/snow; reasonable officials lacked notice	Held: No qualified immunity — the right to a meaningful opportunity for exercise was clearly established (Anderson), so dismissal on qualified immunity was improper
Whether injunctive/declaratory claims and state‑law claims should proceed after McCray’s transfer	McCray: seeks injunctive/declaratory relief and state claims	Defendants: injunctive/declaratory relief against Green Haven officials is moot after transfer; federal claims dismissed so court should decline supplemental jurisdiction	Held: Injunctive/declaratory claims against Green Haven officials are moot and were affirmed dismissed; because exercise‑deprivation federal claims were reinstated, the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state‑law claims was vacated and those state claims were reinstated

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1985) (prisoners must be afforded some opportunity for exercise)
Williams v. Greifinger, 97 F.3d 699 (2d Cir. 1996) (reiterating that prisoner right to some exercise was clearly established)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment conditions claims)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (conditions of confinement and "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities")
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (risk‑of‑harm standard for Eighth Amendment conditions claims)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework)
Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013) (pleading standard for alleging an obvious risk)
Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (transfer of inmate moots injunctive relief against transferring facility)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints must be construed liberally)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (limits on conclusory allegations in pleadings)