×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
WA Guard's Denial of Out-of-Cell Exercise to Prisoner for 105 Days States 8th Amendment Claim
WA Guard's Denial of Out-of-Cell Exercise to Prisoner for 105 Days States
8th Amendment Claim
John Headrick, a Washington state prisoner, sued the superintendent of the
state penitentiary after guards in the segregation unit denied him
out-of-cell exercise for 105 days. He sued in federal district court under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that denying him the out-of-cell violated the
8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed, and
Headrick appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recognized that,
in other 9th Circuit cases, less severe deprivations of out-of-cell
exercise had been held to violate the 8th Amendment. On that basis, the
court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. See:
Headrick v. Morgan, 131 Fed. Appx. 118 , (9th Cir. 2005).
8th Amendment Claim
John Headrick, a Washington state prisoner, sued the superintendent of the
state penitentiary after guards in the segregation unit denied him
out-of-cell exercise for 105 days. He sued in federal district court under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that denying him the out-of-cell violated the
8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court dismissed, and
Headrick appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recognized that,
in other 9th Circuit cases, less severe deprivations of out-of-cell
exercise had been held to violate the 8th Amendment. On that basis, the
court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. See:
Headrick v. Morgan, 131 Fed. Appx. 118 , (9th Cir. 2005).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Headrick v. Morgan
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 131 Fed. Appx. 118 , (9th Cir. 2005) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] Headrick v. Morgan, 131 Fed.Appx. 118 (9th Cir. 05/13/2005)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 04-35550
[3] 131 Fed.Appx. 118, 2005
[4] May 13, 2005
[5] JOHN GRIFFIN HEADRICK, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD MORGAN, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY; ET AL., DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Fred L. Van Sickle, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-05011-FVS.
[7] NOT FOR PUBLICATION
[8] MEMORANDUM*fn1
[9] Submitted May 9, 2005*fn2
[10] Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
[11] John Griffin Headrick, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied out-of-cell exercise for 105 days. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
[12] Headrick's allegation that he was deprived of outdoor exercise for 105 days appears to have an arguable basis in law and fact. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087-1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (Eighth Amendment violation found where prisoner in secured housing unit was allowed only forty-five minutes of outdoor exercise per week for six weeks); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000) (deprivation of outdoor exercise for forty-five days constituted cruel and unusual punishment to prisoner).
[13] Liberally construing Headrick's pro se pleadings, see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), his amended complaint adequately alleges that the named defendants were responsible for his deprivation of outdoor exercise.
[14] Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
[15] VACATED AND REMANDED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] *fn1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[17] *fn2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 04-35550
[3] 131 Fed.Appx. 118, 2005
[4] May 13, 2005
[5] JOHN GRIFFIN HEADRICK, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD MORGAN, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY; ET AL., DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Fred L. Van Sickle, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-05011-FVS.
[7] NOT FOR PUBLICATION
[8] MEMORANDUM*fn1
[9] Submitted May 9, 2005*fn2
[10] Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
[11] John Griffin Headrick, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied out-of-cell exercise for 105 days. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
[12] Headrick's allegation that he was deprived of outdoor exercise for 105 days appears to have an arguable basis in law and fact. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087-1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (Eighth Amendment violation found where prisoner in secured housing unit was allowed only forty-five minutes of outdoor exercise per week for six weeks); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000) (deprivation of outdoor exercise for forty-five days constituted cruel and unusual punishment to prisoner).
[13] Liberally construing Headrick's pro se pleadings, see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), his amended complaint adequately alleges that the named defendants were responsible for his deprivation of outdoor exercise.
[14] Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
[15] VACATED AND REMANDED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[16] *fn1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[17] *fn2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).