Donnie Lowe spent 11 years in solitary confinement, including a stretch of two years at the Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP). While in solitary confinement at CSP, Lowe was alone in his cell for all but five hours a week. During those five hours, he was in a room with two narrow, grated windows and no furnishings apart from a chin-up bar. He was not given any access to the outdoors. After his release, Lowe filed a lawsuit alleging that his deprivation of outdoor exercise violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
From 1993 to 2016, CSP barred prisoners in solitary confinement from outdoor recreation. In 2016—after Lowe’s release—prison officials agreed to provide outdoor exercise to inmates in solitary confinement to settle a different lawsuit.
Solitary confinement is typically imposed when inmates’ behavior or other factors—such as threats made against the inmate—create security risks. But courts have long recognized that solitary confinement raises serious mental and physical health concerns (e.g., In re Medley, 1890; Davis v. Ayala, 2015). Research on the effects of solitary confinement indicates that negative emotional, cognitive, social and even physical effects can arise within mere days (e.g., Appelbaum, 2015; Haney, 2003). These effects include appetite and sleep disturbances, anxiety, aggression, paranoia, hallucinations, self-mutilation, panic, withdrawal, cognitive dysfunction, lethargy, depression and suicidal ideation (Haney, 2003).
Inmates’ right to engage in outdoor exercise is clearly established under the law, and this right applies even when inmates are housed in solitary confinement. Indeed, courts have held that the right to outdoor exercise is a virtual necessity when inmates are kept in continuous segregation (e.g., Spain v. Procunier, 1979). In his lawsuit, Lowe relied on legal precedents stating that inmates who had been deprived of outdoor exercise for nine months or more had colorable Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials.
Based on the foregoing, it would seem that Lowe’s case was on strong footing: Research conducted over decades has revealed the brutal impact of solitary confinement; legal precedents acknowledge this research; courts also recognize the right to outdoor exercise, especially for inmates in solitary confinement; and in response to litigation similar to Lowe’s, CSP had already revised its policy barring segregated inmates from outdoor exercise. Indeed, Lowe’s lawsuit cleared a significant legal hurdle when the trial court denied the prison officials’ motion to dismiss the case on the basis of qualified immunity. Unfortunately for Lowe, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ordered the case to be dismissed. In support of its ruling, the appellate court determined that its precedents—including its prior decision allowing a lawsuit based on a nine-month deprivation of outdoor exercise to proceed—could "reasonably have [been] viewed … as inapplicable" for procedural reasons. This ambiguity is critical because prison officials can only be held liable for violating inmates’ clearly established rights. Thus, the court explained that even if it assumed that a two-year deprivation of outdoor exercise would violate the Eighth Amendment, CSP officials could not be held liable because the violation was not clearly established in legal precedent.
Lowe petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. In October, the court denied the petition (Lowe v. Raemisch, No. 17-1289).
"Judicial Notebook" is a project of APA Div. 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues).
