The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case centered around Michael Johnson, an inmate in solitary confinement at the Pontiac Correctional Center in Illinois. Johnson, who suffers from an array of severe mental health issues, was kept under such confinement for three years, frequently devoid of outdoor exercise. The legal professional community would be of interest to know that his petition indicated that there were over one-year periods where Mr. Johnson was deprived of even a single hour of exercise.
Initially representing himself, Johnson argued that this treatment—particularly the denial of outdoor exercise—violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. However, this argument was stymied on appeal, the appellate court docking its reasoning on the case Pearson v. Ramos. This previous case ruled a 90-day period of “no yard privileges” as not constituting cruel or unusual punishment and also permitted multiple consecutive 90-day periods granted their issuance for “non-trivial” reasons.
Aggravating his plight, the Circuit Court upheld that the deprivation of Johnson’s yard privileges based on prohibitations due to a medical order, allowing it per the Pearson v. Ramos ruling. Johnson sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court, filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. His efforts, however, were met with a 6-3 decision to deny review of the case, as per the court’s publicly available docket record.
Interestingly, Justice Jackson differed in this majority perspective, as per her dissent. Joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, Jackson suggested that the lower courts should have assessed whether the prison officials displayed “deliberate indifference” to Johnson’s health in denying him exercise time. This points to a potential area of exploration for legal practitioners intrigued by cases that test the boundaries of Eighth Amendment interpretations.
Based on the information provided by Jurist, at present, this decision redraws the limits of executing humane practices against punitive imperatives within U.S. correctional facilities. Furthermore, legal community members might be intrigued by how this could shape future litigation around prisoner entitlement and Eighth Amendment rights.