Williams, Bobby A. v. Ridley-Turner , 148 F. App'x 545 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted August 18, 2005*
    Decided August 31, 2005
    Before
    Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
    Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
    No. 04-3688
    Appeal from the United States
    BOBBY A. WILLIAMS,                            District Court for the Southern
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                      District of Indiana, Indianapolis
    Division
    v.
    No. 1:04-cv-1449-SEB-VSS
    EVELYN RIDLEY-TURNER, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.                     Sarah Evans Barker,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Bobby Williams, an Indiana prisoner, brought this damages action under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claiming a lockdown that kept him from leaving his cell to exercise for
    over four months amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The district court
    dismissed the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. We
    vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
    *
    Appellees notified this court that they were never served with process in
    the district court and would not be filing a brief or otherwise participating in this
    appeal. After an examination of the appellant’s brief and the record, we have
    concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the
    brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    No. 04-3688                                                                    Page 2
    We accept as true the facts described by Williams in his complaint and
    appellate brief. See Hoskins v. Lenear, 
    395 F.3d 372
    , 373 (7th Cir. 2005); Gutierrez
    v. Peters, 
    111 F.3d 1364
    , 1367 n.2 (7th Cir. 1997). In late April 2004, prison
    officials instituted a lockdown to avert a potential inmate protest. The organizers of
    the protest were soon transferred to another facility, but the lockdown remained in
    effect when Williams filed this action in early September 2004. The 24-hour
    lockdown restricted inmates to their cells without any exercise periods, religious
    services, or visits. In his complaint Williams alleges that the lack of exercise
    caused him to suffer physical pain in his stomach and lower back, as well as
    “mental depression.” He also alleges that the defendants were responsible for
    instituting and maintaining the lockdown.
    The district court concluded on initial screening that the complaint fails to
    state a claim, reasoning that Williams cannot establish an Eighth Amendment
    violation because he does not allege that the defendants deprived him of “adequate
    food, clothing, shelter and medical care, and reasonable measures to guarantee his
    safety.” The court added that Williams’ complaint is barred under 42 U.S.C.
    § 1997e(e) because “[n]o claim of physical injury is presented or suggested here.”
    To state an Eighth Amendment claim, a complaint need only state the “legal
    claim and provide ‘some indication of time and place.’” Christopher v. Buss, 
    384 F.3d 879
    , 881 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Thomson v. Washington, 
    362 F.3d 969
    , 970-
    71 (7th Cir. 2004)). In this case Williams alleges that he was unable to exercise
    outside his cell for more than four months, a restriction that we have held can
    amount to a constitutional deprivation. See Delaney v. DeTella, 
    256 F.3d 679
    , 683-
    84 (7th Cir. 2001) (six-month denial of exercise because of prison lockdown was
    serious deprivation); Pearson v. Ramos, 
    237 F.3d 881
    , 884 (7th Cir. 2001) (observing
    that denial of out-of-cell exercise for more than 90 days can constitute cruel and
    unusual punishment); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 
    81 F.3d 1422
    , 1432 (7th Cir. 1996)
    (noting that extreme and prolonged lack of exercise may “rise to a constitutional
    violation”); Anderson v. Romero, 
    72 F.3d 518
    , 527 (7th Cir. 1995) (identifying the
    denial of all opportunity for out-of-cell exercise as a possible Eighth Amendment
    violation). Although valid institutional reasons for the lockdown may exist, see
    Delaney, 
    256 F.3d at 685
    , dismissal at the complaint stage of the proceedings was
    premature.
    Finally, to the extent the district court concluded that under § 1997e,
    Williams fails to allege an injury, we have held comparable symptoms to be
    sufficient. See Delaney, 
    256 F.3d at 685
     (migraine headaches, heartburn, stomach
    and neck pain, constipation, lethargy, and depression).
    VACATED and REMANDED.