Wilson v. Blankenship , 163 F.3d 1284 ( 1998 )

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 94-7158.
Donald WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BLANKENSHIP, Warden of Montgomery City Jail, Miss Hall, Assistant Warden, Employee of
Montgomery City Jail, Mr. Parks, Employee of Montgomery City Jail, Mrs. Hawkens, Employee
of Montgomery City Jail, Janice Hopkins, Pam Harding, U.S. Marshal, Defendants-Appellees.
Dec. 31, 1998.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. (Nos. CV 92-A-
865-N, CV 92-A-869-N), W. Harold Albritton, Judge.
Before ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges, and COHILL*, Senior District Judge.
BIRCH, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal from consolidated actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971),
we determine whether a federal pretrial detainee was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of
imprisonment in a city jail. The district court granted summary judgment to the federal marshal, the
wardens, and the correctional officers. We affirm because we conclude that all of the
defendants-appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 12, 1991, plaintiff-appellant, Donald Wilson, was arrested by drug
enforcement agents in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for a narcotics violation on a warrant issued by the
federal district court in the Middle District of Alabama. A magistrate judge in Fort Lauderdale
*
Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
ordered Wilson removed from the Southern District of Florida to the Middle District of Alabama.
Because there is no federal detention facility in the Middle District of Alabama, individuals awaiting
trial or sentencing on federal charges are housed in municipal and county jails in the district pursuant
to intergovernmental agreements, or contracts, with the United States Marshals Service ("Marshals
Service"). One such jail used by the Marshals Service to house federal detainees is the Montgomery
City Jail ("MCJ") in Montgomery, Alabama.
Defendant-appellee Pam Harding, a criminal investigator for the Marshals Service stationed
in Montgomery, transported Wilson from the Northern District of Georgia to MCJ pending his trial
and moved him on other occasions for court proceedings. Wilson was housed at MCJ from October
1, 1991, until December 17, 1991, when he was moved to Dothan City Jail to await sentencing.1
Wilson presently is incarcerated in at the Federal Correctional Institution in Raybrook, New York.
In his consolidated actions under § 1983 and Bivens, Wilson sought compensatory and
punitive damages2 for alleged constitutional violations during his stay at MCJ. He contended that
the absence of a law library at MCJ allegedly caused him to plead guilty to his then-pending federal
charge and prevented him from litigating pro se a related forfeiture case as well as this civil rights
case. He also alleged that he suffered unconstitutional confinement conditions at MCJ, including
overcrowding, disciplinary confinement, and lack of exercise, which allegedly caused him stress,
weight gain, and high blood pressure. Defendants-appellees are L.M. Blankenship, MCJ warden
1
Wilson returned briefly to MCJ in February, 1992, prior to transportation to his designated
federal correctional institution to serve his sentence.
2
Wilson sued defendants-appellants jointly and severally for $500,000 compensatory damages
and $900,000 punitive damages.
at the relevant time; Sharon Hall, assistant MCJ warden at the relevant time; Janice Hopkins3 and
Rafael Parks,4 correctional officers; and Harding. All of these defendants-appellees pled qualified
immunity as an affirmative defense.5 The district court treated the ordered special reports by
Harding, Blankenship, Hall, Hopkins, and Parks as motions for summary judgment. Wilson moved
for summary judgment and requested a jury trial.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that summary
judgment be entered for all defendants. The district judge adopted the recommendation of the
magistrate judge, denied Wilson's motion for summary judgment and request for a jury trial, and
granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. On appeal, Wilson pursues his
contentions of unconstitutional confinement conditions at MCJ.
II. ANALYSIS
We review de novo a district judge's grant of summary judgment. See Hale v. Tallapoosa
County, 50 F.3d 1579, 1581 (11th Cir.1995). When "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law," summary judgment is
3
Although Wilson appears to have sued both "Mrs. Hawkens" and "Janice Hopkins," the
record clarifies that this is one correctional officer and that her correct name is Janice H.
Hopkins. See R1-14, Hopkins Affidavit at 1.
4
The record shows that defendant-appellee "Mr. Park" is correctional officer Rafael Parks, Sr.
See R1-14, Parks Affidavit at 1.
5
Although Wilson's original complaint states that he sued the state defendants in both their
individual and official capacities, the record and course of proceedings indicate that he sued
these defendants only in their individual capacities. See Colvin v. McDougall, 62 F.3d 1316,
1317 (11th Cir.1995) (stating that the complaint and course of proceedings determines whether
civil rights defendants are sued in individual or official capacities). In suing for monetary
damages solely, Wilson named the individual defendants and described their involvement in his
alleged constitutional deprivations. Moreover, none of the defendants pled Eleventh
Amendment, sovereign immunity, which would relate to suit in their official capacities, and all
pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity from suit in their individual capacities.
appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Because of the similarity in the causes of action, a Bivens case
challenges the constitutionality of federal officials' conduct, while § 1983 challenges the
constitutionality of state officials' conduct, we "generally apply § 1983 law to Bivens cases." Abella
v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil trials and liability when their
conduct in performing discretionary functions "violates no "clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Lassiter v. Alabama A &
M Univ., Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). The district judge did
not grant summary judgment to the government defendants based on qualified immunity; the
magistrate judge did not mention this entitlement in his recommendation. Nevertheless, qualified
immunity, pled by all of the government defendants as an affirmative defense, should have been the
analysis used to grant them summary judgment on the facts in this case.
Our circuit applies a two-part test to determine if the qualified immunity defense protects
a defendant government official. See Evans v. Hightower, 117 F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir.1997).
First, the "defendant government official must prove that he was acting within the scope of his
discretionary authority when the alleged wrongful act occurred." Id. Second, if the defendant
official meets his burden, then the plaintiff must "demonstrate that the defendant violated clearly
established law based upon objective standards." Id. General propositions and abstractions do not
qualify for bright line, clearly established law. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150. "For qualified
immunity to be surrendered, pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or
allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable government agent
that what defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances." Id. By applying these
principles, we determine the entitlement of the marshal, the wardens, and the correctional officers
to qualified immunity.
A. Marshal
The only evidence in the record that connects Harding to Wilson is her transportation of him
to MCJ and to court proceedings when he was a federal pretrial detainee.6 Our court has determined
that marshals' transporting of federal pretrial detainees is within the scope of their discretionary
authority. See Jordan v. Doe, 38 F.3d 1559, 1566 (11th Cir.1994). At the time that Harding
transported Wilson, however, no clearly established law would have informed a reasonable
government official that transporting a federal pretrial detainee to a local jail with which the
Marshals Service had an intergovernmental agreement was unconstitutional. See id. at 1566-67.
Accordingly, Harding was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
B. Wardens
Blankenship and Hall respectively were warden and assistant warden at MCJ while Wilson
was there. Although the scope of their responsibilities encompassed the daily administration of
MCJ, Wilson does not complain about the order, cleanliness, or food at MCJ, aspects of the daily
functioning of a jail. Instead, his contentions involve space: the lack of a law library and space for
exercise. There is no evidence in the record that Blankenship and Hall had control over these
aspects of MCJ.
Federal pretrial detainees were housed at MCJ pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement
between the City of Montgomery and the Marshals Service, which paid a daily fee for federal
6
To the extent Wilson suggests that knowledge of the United States Marshals annual
inspection report on MCJ should be imputed to Harding, we find this speculation to be supported
by neither the facts nor the law. Even if she were aware of the inspection report, there is no
evidence whatsoever that Harding had any control over the operation of MCJ and the
confinement conditions there.
detainees housed there. A contracting officer for the Marshals Service and the local police chief
executed the intergovernmental agreement effective at the time that Wilson was housed at MCJ.
That agreement provided that MCJ would house thirty-two federal detainees a day at the request of
the Marshals Service.7 No mention is made of space or square footage per federal inmate or of
outdoor or indoor exercise. Neither Blankenship nor Hall was a party to this intergovernmental
agreement; they implemented its terms for the local government. Furthermore, the special report
filed at the request of the magistrate judge on behalf of the wardens and correctional officers at MCJ
states: "The United States Marshals Service is fully aware that [MCJ] has no area for outdoor
exercise and has no law library. The United States Marshals Service and the Federal Board of
Corrections inspect [MCJ] once every three (3) months." R1-14-2.
Providing a law library and stocking it as well as building a larger space to house federal
detainees necessarily would involve the appropriation of funds. There is no evidence in the record
that Blankenship or Hall had any responsibility for or ability to cause such appropriation.8 See Hill
7
Concerning housing federal detainees at MCJ, the intergovernmental agreement in effect at
the time that Wilson was housed there provided:
The LOCAL GOVERNMENT agrees to accept and provide detention space and
services for thirty-two (32) Federal prisoners, (which includes 16 male and 12
female Federal prisoners ... ) in USMS custody, each day upon the request of the
U.S. Marshal at the Montgomery City Jail for a period of fifteen (15) years....
R1-17, Exh. A, Intergovernmental Agreement (Oct. 1, 1991) at 4. During the time that
Wilson was confined at MCJ, the two MCJ cellblocks used for federal prisoners were
filled to capacity and housed 16 inmates in four, four-person cells.
8
The funds for building or improving local jails come from the local government and usually
involve taxing the citizens. See Moore v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1553, 1556-57 (11th Cir.1991)
(local sheriff approached county commission to propose a referendum to decide if citizens would
incur a tax for a new jail to remedy the overcrowding problem at the existing jail); Hamm v.
DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1569 (11th Cir.1985) (county provides the funding for the local
jail and participates in establishing the general operational procedures, while the jail is
supervised by the sheriff and county commissioners who set the general operational policies and
v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Detention Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1194 (11th Cir.1994) (stating that "[t]he critical
determination for imposing liability under section 1983 is ascertaining the particular official with
"final policymaking authority' " (quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737, 109
S.Ct. 2702, 2723, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989))). Additionally, creating a law library out of the existing
space would exacerbate the other problem about which Wilson complains: insufficient space for
exercise.
Therefore, the record shows that the discretionary responsibilities of Blankenship and Hall
with respect to federal detainees consisted of daily administering MCJ pursuant to the
intergovernmental agreement between the Marshals Service and the local government and the local
regulations of that facility. There is no evidence that they did not do this or that they had any ability
to operate MCJ outside this circumscribed zone of discretionary authority regarding federal
detainees housed at MCJ. Even if these space concerns were within the scope of their discretionary
duties, we still conclude that Blankenship and Hall are protected by qualified immunity because
failure to provide a law library for the federal detainees housed there or specific square footage for
inmates to exercise violates no clearly established law for qualified immunity purposes, as we
clarify.
1. Denial of Access to Courts
It is undisputed that there was no law library in MCJ and no access to a law library when
Wilson was detained there.9 He contends that this deprivation prevented him from filing his civil
rights case while he was at MCJ as well as defending his civil rights case. Wilson's sworn testimony
are responsible for jail conditions).
9
Inmates could keep legal materials in their cells and receive attorney calls and visits. Each
unit had a dayroom with a telephone that inmates could use to contact attorneys for legal
assistance or materials.
at the evidentiary hearing, however, failed to establish that he was concerned with any legal matter
other than his criminal case, for which he was represented by counsel. Therefore, the magistrate
judge concluded that Wilson suffered no prejudice from his lack of access to the courts while at
MCJ.
"[T]he fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities
to ... provid[e] prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in
the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). The
Supreme Court, however, has clarified that prisoners' contentions of deprivations of access to courts
must show actual injury as a "constitutional prerequisite." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116
S.Ct. 2174, 2180, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); see Weaver v. Brenner, 40 F.3d 527, 533 (2d Cir.1994)
(recognizing that, when judicial decisions subsequently delineate that a right that generally appeared
to exist at the time of the government official's conduct did not actually exist, then "the conduct will
not subject the official to liability"). While Bounds guarantees the right of access to the courts under
the Fourteenth Amendment, prisoners have no inherent or independent right of access to a law
library or to legal assistance. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349-51, 116 S.Ct. at 2179-80. Instead, they
must show actual injury in the pursuit of specific types of nonfrivolous cases: direct or collateral
attacks on sentences and challenges to conditions of confinement.10 Id. at 355-57, 116 S.Ct. at 2182.
"Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly
constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." Id. at 355, 116 S.Ct. at 2182.
With respect to access-to-court claims, Lewis clarifies that a plaintiff first must show actual
injury before seeking relief under Bounds. See Bass v. Singletary, 143 F.3d 1442, 1444 (11th
10
In Lewis, examples of actual injury regarding prospective or existing litigation were missing
filing deadlines or being prevented from presenting claims. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348, 116
S.Ct. at 2178.
Cir.1998). This essential standing requirement means that actions by prison officials that allegedly
violated an inmate's right of access to the courts must have impeded the inmate's pursuit of a
nonfrivolous, post-conviction claim or civil rights action. See id. at 1445. To prevail, a plaintiff
must provide evidence of such deterrence, such as a denial or dismissal of a direct appeal, habeas
petition, or civil rights case that results from actions of prison officials. See id. at 1446. Therefore,
in an access-to-courts claim, "a plaintiff cannot merely allege a denial of access to a law library or
adequate attorney, even if the denial is systemic." Sabers v. Delano, 100 F.3d 82, 84 (8th Cir.1996)
(per curiam). Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the lack of a law library or inadequate access
to counsel hindered his "efforts to proceed with a legal claim in a criminal appeal, postconviction
matter, or civil rights action seeking to vindicate basic constitutional rights." Id.In this case, Wilson asserts that the lack of a law library at MCJ prevented him from
pursuing these civil rights claims and his civil forfeiture case. Aside from the magistrate judge's
determination that Wilson was involved solely with his criminal case while at MCJ, we find
Wilson's contentions to be meritless. Because Wilson did litigate his § 1983 and Bivens cases in
district court and on appeal, he cannot demonstrate that the prison officials prevented him from
pursuing these causes of action. See Bass, 143 F.3d at 1446. Additionally, Wilson's forfeiture case
is not a type of case that is included under the right of inmates' access to courts under Lewis, which
limits that right to direct or collateral appeals and civil rights cases. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355, 116
S.Ct. at 2182. The Supreme Court has reiterated that an in rem forfeiture action constitutes a civil
remedial sanction, which is not a classification of case recognized as included in the access-to-courts
right under Lewis. See United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 277-78, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 2142, 135
L.Ed.2d 549 (1996). Therefore, Wilson has failed to show actual legal injury regarding either his
criminal conviction, because he was represented by counsel in that matter, or his civil rights
litigation, evidenced by this appeal, and Lewis and Ursery mandate that he has no standing for a
denial of an access-to-courts claim based on any injury regarding his civil forfeiture case. Thus,
even if they had discretionary authority to provide a law library at MCJ, Blankenship and Hall did
not violate Wilson's constitutional right of access to courts.11
2. Exercise
Wilson complains that both outdoor and indoor exercise were unavailable to him while he
was housed at MCJ. It is undisputed that MCJ has no space or provision for outdoor exercise for its
inmates. Additionally, Wilson contends that he was unable to exercise inside MCJ because of the
lack of space resulting from the number of inmates there.
In contrast to a sentenced prisoner, whose conditions of confinement are analyzed under the
Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, "the proper inquiry [for a pretrial
detainee] is whether [confinement] conditions amount to punishment of the [unadjudicated]
detainee" under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520, 535 & n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872 & n. 16, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); see Villarreal v. Woodham,
113 F.3d 202, 207 (11th Cir.1997) (recognizing that confinement of pretrial detainees is a "necessary
restriction" to ensure their presence in court).
Not every disability imposed during pretrial detention amounts to "punishment" in
the constitutional sense, however.... And the fact that such detention interferes with the
detainee's understandable desire to live as comfortably as possible and with as little restraint
as possible during confinement does not convert the conditions or restrictions of detention
into "punishment."
Bell, 441 U.S. at 537, 99 S.Ct. at 1873. In analyzing confinement conditions about which a pretrial
detainee complains, a court must decide whether the detention officials intentionally imposed the
11
We further note that MCJ "has built a new law library for prisoners since this appeal was
filed," which Wilson's appellate counsel acknowledges could render this issue "moot."
Appellant's Supplemental Brief at 9.
restriction for a punitive purpose or whether it is reasonably incidental to a legitimate government
objective. See id. at 538-39, 99 S.Ct. at 1873-74; see Villarreal, 113 F.3d at 207. "If a restriction
is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal—if it is arbitrary or purposeless—a court may infer that
the purpose of the government action is punishment." Lynch v. Baxley, 744 F.2d 1452, 1463 (11th
Cir.1984). Additionally, our court evaluates particular pretrial detainee complaints against the
totality of confinement conditions to determine if there is constitutional deficiency. See Hamm v.
DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575-76 (11th Cir.1985).
As we have explained, there is no evidence in this record to show that Blankenship or Hall
had any authority or ability to create a secure space at MCJ for outdoor exercise for inmates.
Principally, this is because the local government is responsible for appropriating the funds for
building such jail outdoor exercise space. Under the analysis prescribed by Bell, there is no
evidence whatsoever in the record that Wilson or any other inmate at MCJ was denied outdoor
exercise by Blankenship or Hall as punishment. Instead, these wardens were implementing the
legitimate government purpose of housing federal detainees pursuant the terms of the
intergovernmental agreement between the Marshals Service and the local government. The Court's
decision in Bell considered the relatively short stay of federal pretrial detainees at a facility such as
MCJ. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 543, 99 S.Ct. at 1876. Following Bell, the former Fifth Circuit accorded
no relief at a similar institution housing federal pretrial detainees where "[t]here was no outdoor
exercise."12 Jones v. Diamond, 636 F.2d 1364, 1374 (5th Cir. Jan. 1981) (en banc). We conclude
12
In a case that predated Bell, we are cognizant that the former Fifth Circuit found that pretrial
detainees should not be incarcerated continuously "in an institution designed to punish, where
outdoor recreation is reasonably possible." Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741, 750 (5th Cir.1977).
Rather than mandating immediate outdoor recreation, however, the Miller court recognized that
such outdoor exercise "may not be immediately attainable because of lack of resources" and
stated that this was "a goal toward which the jail authorities should strive." Id. Thus, Miller did
not require that every pretrial detainee have an automatic constitutional right to outdoor exercise,
that not only does the record fail to show that Blankenship and Hall, as wardens at MCJ, had
discretionary authority to provide outdoor exercise for Wilson or that the lack of such exercise was
to punish him, but also that no clearly established constitutional law required that Wilson have
immediate access to outdoor exercise during the time that he was at MCJ, where no such facilities
existed, and his confinement at MCJ was brief.
Wilson also complains that he was unable to exercise inside MCJ in the limited space
available to him. Hall's affidavit explains that Wilson and other inmates were released from their
cells into a larger, open area, or dayroom, containing a telephone and television for inmates' use, at
5:00 A.M. and that they remained there until 10:00 P.M., when they returned to their cells for the
night. See R1-14, Hall Affidavit at 1-2. This open area "provides space where the inmates may
participate in exercises such as push-ups, sit-ups and limited jogging, etc."13 Id. at 2; see Jones, 636
F.2d at 1373 (noting that there was limited room for indoor exercise and that inmates did push-ups
"as their only form of exercise in the jammed cells and day rooms"). Wilson states that the dayroom
consisted of approximately 240 square feet of floor space, which he shared with fifteen inmates,
affording approximately fifteen square feet of floor space per man. See R1-35-1; id. App. B,
and continuous incarceration is distinct from brief detention periods. We further note that the
defendants in Miller were the county sheriff as well as city and state officials charged with
oversight of the prison system and appropriation of local and state funds for building prisons and
improvements to existing prisons and not the warden, who is charged with the daily
administration of the prison. See id. at 744 & n. 2 & 3. Furthermore, because it predated Bell,
which instructs that courts must analyze confinement conditions of pretrial detainees to
determine if the intent is to punish or if the condition is incidental to a legitimate government
purpose, Miller was not considered under Bell, which directs our review in this case.
13
A Marshals Service inspection report states "there is ample room in the day room areas for
inmates to do exercises." Government Exh. 1-7. Additionally, federal detainees, like other
inmates housed at MCJ, also engage in indoor work detail, which involves sweeping, mopping,
and scrubbing their cells, the common areas, and hallways that they occupy on a daily basis. See
R1-14, Exh. B at 10 (MCJ Standard Minimum Rules and Regulations). We note that these
activities provide some exercise.
Wilson Affidavit at 1. He further represents that "even if it would be feas[i]ble to ex[er]cise in this
area, it would only annoy the individuals using the phone, and obstruct the others['] v[ie]w of T.V.
and could easily escalate into violent physical confrontations," R1-35-1, and that "[t]his area was
sever[e]ly over cro[w]ded under the Federal Regulations," id. App. B, Wilson Affidavit at 1.
Despite Wilson's contentions of overcrowding, we note that he does not represent that there
were more than sixteen inmates in the dayroom, which was the maximum number specified in the
intergovernmental agreement between the Marshals Service and the local government. Furthermore,
we have not granted relief for more crowded conditions than Wilson experienced at MCJ in a facility
that housed both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. See, e.g., Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1569
("During Hamm's incarceration there, the jail's population at times exceeded the facility's design
capacity."). In Bell, the Supreme Court clarified that the relative brevity of pretrial detainees'
confinement allows spacial confinement that involves "genuine privations and hardship," which
might be questionable under the Due Process Clause if they continued "over an extended period of
time." Bell, 441 U.S. at 542, 99 S.Ct. at 1876. The Court also stated that federal court decisions
concerning minimum inmate space requirements as well as purported standards recommended by
various groups with expertise in correctional institutions may set goals, but that "they simply do not
establish the constitutional minima."14 Id. at 543 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. at 1876 n. 27. Recognizing the Bell
mandate, "we set no space standards," Jones, 636 F.2d at 1376, in a similar institution where the
dayroom sometimes afforded "little more than six square feet per inmate." Id. at 1374. Our court
14
Even "recommendations of the Federal Corrections Policy Task Force of the Department of
Justice regarding conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees are not determininative of the
requirements of the Constitution." Bell, 441 U.S. at 543 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. at 1876 n. 27 (emphasis
added). Consequently, the Marshals Service MCJ inspection report, relevant to the time that
Wilson was at MCJ, does not show a constitutional violation when it notes that the dayroom was
not in compliance with 35 square feet per inmate recommended by the Marshals Service. See
Government Exh. 2 at 2.
further has concluded that "[i]t is equally clear that the due process clause does not purport to
regulate the general conditions and quality of life in the country's jails, and that the courts should
not attempt to make "judgment calls' to determine which of various marginally different conditions
might be more appropriate." Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573.
Rather than complaining that fifteen square feet per inmate is insufficient space to do
exercises such as push-ups, sit-ups, or jogging in place, Wilson speculates that such exercises may
annoy the other inmates with the potential for physical confrontations. There is no evidence in this
record that any altercation occurred as a result of Wilson's attempted indoor exercising during his
stay at MCJ. Thus, Wilson has presented no documented reason that he could not have engaged in
indoor exercises while he was at MCJ, and he has not shown that Blankenship or Hall prevented him
from doing so for a punitive purpose. To the extent that Wilson represents that he developed high
blood pressure because of the lack of an ability to exercise at MCJ, his medical history, attached to
the special report filed on behalf of the wardens and correctional officers, shows that he was
suffering from high blood pressure when he entered MCJ. His medical records while at MCJ further
evidence that he received medication and was treated for his ailments while there. Thus, Wilson's
high blood pressure was not caused by his detention at MCJ and his alleged inability to exercise
there.
In addition to having no discretionary authority to fund and to build an secure outdoor
exercise facility at MCJ or to deviate from the specifications of the intergovernmental agreement
between the Marshals Service and the local government as to the number of federal detainees housed
at MCJ with the resulting implications for inmate space there, Blankenship and Hall violated no
clearly established law in not providing Wilson outdoor exercise while he was at MCJ or affording
him more space for indoor exercise. Applying the Bell standard to confinement conditions, such as
space, is "exceedingly difficult and does not provide clear results," which makes qualified immunity
appropriate. Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573. Moreover, states, not wardens, "can improve the quality and
quantity"of such conditions by "increasing and properly administering the amount of money they
spend on a detention facility"; "courts in most instances may not interfere with a state's decision to
provide detainees with a reasonable level and quality of food, living space, and medical care." Id.
Additionally, under a totality of confinement conditions analysis, Wilson's complaints are few in
comparison to other cases where we have not given relief because we determined that the
confinement conditions were not constitutional violations. See, e.g., id. at 1569-70 (noting that
objectionable confinement conditions at county jail included overcrowding, sleeping on tables or
the floor, unsanitary floor and linens, occasional foreign objects in the food). On the facts of this
case, Blankenship and Hall are entitled to qualified immunity.15
C. Correctional Officers
Wilson contends that correctional officers Parks and Hopkins also denied him access to a law
library and exercise as well as placed him in disciplinary isolation without proper bedding. There
is no evidence in the record that Parks or Hopkins had any discretionary authority regarding
implementing policies or procedures at MCJ; consequently, they were not responsible for the lack
of a law library or exercise space at MCJ. As we additionally have discussed, the lack of a law
15
We note that our decision would be the same under an Eighth Amendment analysis
applicable to the brief time that Wilson returned to MCJ after his conviction and before he was
moved to his designated federal penitentiary to serve his sentence. Our court has held that the
minimum standard of the Due Process Clause relative to basic necessities, such as living space,
"is the same as that allowed by the eighth amendment for convicted persons." Hamm, 774 F.2d
at 1574. "The Supreme Court ... has not set forth a standard for determining what level of
necessities the due process clause absolutely requires." Id. Consequently, in addition to having
no ability to create exercise space at MCJ as part of their discretionary responsibilities,
Blakenship and Hall violated no clearly established law under the Eighth Amendment with
respect to Wilson during the time that he was at MCJ, which also would entitle them to qualified
immunity.
library, outdoor exercise, or more space for indoor exercise did not violate clearly established law
as to Wilson's constitutional rights while he was at MCJ. Accordingly, Parks and Hopkins are
entitled to qualified immunity concerning these issues. We limit our analysis to Wilson's complaints
concerning his disciplinary isolation.
Wilson represents that, on two separate occasions, Parks and Hopkins each placed him in
disciplinary isolation as sanctions for his misconduct.16 See R1-35, App. B, Wilson Affidavit at 1.
He further states that he "was forced to sleep on a bare floor, which was both degrading and
inhumane." Id. at 1. The magistrate judge ordered Hopkins to respond to Wilson's allegations.
Hopkins explained that she placed Wilson in an isolation cell because he was inciting other inmates
to disobey an order to lower the noise in their cellblock and that it was her professional opinion that
he had to be removed to maintain security in the cellblock. See R1-39, Hopkins Affidavit at 1-2.
She further avers that MCJ inmates who remain in isolation are given bedding and that Wilson was
not required to sleep on the floor. Id. In a report describing the incident to Warden Hall, Hopkins
states that Wilson was not calm when her shift terminated and that it was the responsibility of the
next shift to provide bedding for inmates who remained in isolation after lock down and lights out.
See R1-38, Exh. A. Even accepting Wilson's account that he was not provided bedding in the
isolation cell, the correctional officer on duty at lock down and lights out would be the individual
who allegedly deprived Wilson of bedding and not Hopkins. Additionally, it is unclear from the
record whether Wilson actually spent the night or several hours in the isolation cell. We also are
16
Wilson has not placed in the record the specifics of his alleged disciplinary isolation by
Parks. Because Wilson "bear[s] the responsibility of ensuring that the record is complete," and
he "has given us no reason to believe he was unable to do so," we are unable to address his
allegations relating to Parks. United States v. Walker, 839 F.2d 1483, 1485 n. 2 (11th Cir.1988)
(per curiam). Therefore, Parks is entitled to qualified immunity because we will not hold a
government official personally liable for compensatory and punitive damages based on mere
allegations. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149-50.
mindful that our court has not found an inmate's sleeping on a table while in confinement, but not
isolation, not to be violative of any constitutional rights. See Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1569.
Significantly, Wilson was placed in disciplinary isolation to quell a disturbance that he was
causing on the cellblock at night. "[P]reserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that
may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners
and pretrial detainees." Bell, 441 U.S. at 546, 99 S.Ct. at 1878; see Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573
("Legitimate restraints may stem from the state's need to manage the detention facility and maintain
security."). Prison officials have "wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies
and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to
maintain institutional security." Bell, 441 U.S. at 547, 99 S.Ct. at 1878. Because courts are not in
a position to evaluate urgent problems that occur in prison administration, we do not second-guess
prison officials on matters that they are better equipped to handle under the exigencies of an internal
disturbance. See id. at 531, 99 S.Ct. at 1870. Wilson's temporary placement in disciplinary isolation
for the legitimate purpose of quieting him on the facts of this record was not unconstitutional even
without bedding and did not violate any clearly established law at the relevant time. Accordingly,
we conclude that Parks and Hopkins are entitled to qualified immunity concerning Wilson's
placement in disciplinary isolation.17
III. CONCLUSION
In this Bivens and § 1983 case, Wilson has alleged that a federal marshal, MCJ wardens and
17
To the extent that Wilson suggests that he was deprived of due process because he was
confined in disciplinary isolation without a hearing, "the Due Process Clause does not directly
protect an inmate from changes in the conditions of his confinement." Chandler v. Baird, 926
F.2d 1057, 1060 (11th Cir.1991). Specifically, the Due Process Clause does not establish " "an
interest in being confined to a general population cell, rather than the more austere and
restrictive administrative segregation quarters.' " Id. (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460,
466, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)).
correctional officers violated his constitutional rights as to access to courts, exercise, and
disciplinary isolation. As we have explained, all of these defendants-appellants are entitled to
qualified immunity. On this basis, the grant of summary judgment to defendants-appellants is
AFFIRMED.