The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of an Illinois inmate who sued the state after he spent two uninterrupted years and three years total in solitary confinement without any opportunities to go outside or get exercise.
A similar legal challenge from Texas was also on the horizon, presenting the nation’s highest court with another opportunity to examine the constitutionality of prolonged solitary confinement, and setting the stage for a potential ruling to determine whether the practice qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constituion.
Hope vs. Harris, the Texas case filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has potential to compel the justices to narrow their focus to one particular issue that was raised in the Illinois case, which questioned the denial of regular outdoor exercise.
The previous case, Johnson vs. Prentice, was brought by Michael Johnson, a Black inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center in Illinois since 2007, who claimed his constitutional rights were violated in an extreme case of isolation that began in 2013 when he had his exercise privileges suspended in response to ongoing misconduct.
Johnson, who was convicted of a violent home invasion and assault, has served an extended amount of his incarceration in solitary confinement due to disciplinary issues and multiple violations of prison rules, while the frequency and duration of the punishments have raised questions about the impact on Johnson’s mental health, especially given his previous diagnoses of severe depression and bipolar disorder.
During his confinement, Johnson endured “countless” stretches of 30 to 90 days in total isolation, confined to a small cell for 24 hours each day with no exercise or activity, which is the usual protocol for solitary inmates, his lawsuit claimed.
Johnson was only allowed to come out of his cell once a week for a 10-minute shower, further emphasizing the bleak…
Read the full article here
