Inmate in solitary confinement asserts Eighth Amendment claim

Where the inmate demonstrated he was denied a meaningful opportunity to shower and exercise while he was in solitary confinement, and the parties disputed whether the denials were sufficiently serious and whether prison officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, prison officials were not entitled to summary judgment.

Background

Denis A. Rivera is an inmate at Red Onion State Prison. From April 2014 to August 2018, Rivera was confined in segregation, also known as solitary confinement. A Red Onion prisoner in segregation is housed alone and typically confined to his cell for 24 hours each day unless participating in one of the few out-of-cell activities offered, primarily showering or outdoor recreation. A Red Onion prisoner in segregation “should be permitted” three showers and five out-of-cell exercise sessions per week according to a Virginia Department of Corrections Operating Procedure.

On July 17, 2016, Rivera filed a verified, pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he had been, and continued to be, deprived of showers and recreation periods while in segregation. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on all claims and denied Rivera’s request for injunctive relief.

Analysis

Rivera argues on appeal that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to shower and exercise because he was asleep when corrections officers took the shower and exercise list and was deemed to have “refused” the opportunities. However, Rivera was an inmate in segregation, often alone in his cell for 24 hours a day without an alarm clock.

Prison staff refused to wake Rivera, despite an official memo suggesting that blowing a whistle was appropriate. Staff also refused to accept shower and recreation requests made by leaving a note or telling staff in person at a later time. The district court held it was “Rivera’s choice” not to shower and exercise because he did not follow prison procedures. Rivera argues the prison procedures presented him no real choice or opportunity to shower or exercise. We agree with Rivera.

The next issue is whether the shower and recreation deprivations here are sufficiently severe to establish a conditions of confinement claim in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment. To sustain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show two things: (1) “the deprivation suffered or injury inflicted on the inmate was sufficiently serious (objective component)” and (2) “the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind (subjective component).”

We are satisfied that Rivera has presented sufficient evidence to establish genuine issues of material fact as to the objective prong of his conditions of confinement claim. Additionally, we are satisfied that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to the subjective prong of Rivera’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on that claim.

Rivera next argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on his Eighth Amendment denial of medical care claim. Although a rash, in some circumstances, might satisfy the objective prong, here, Rivera’s skin rash is not sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment denial of medical care claim. We are thus satisfied that the district court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendants on Rivera’s Eighth Amendment denial of medical care claim.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.

Rivera v. Methena, Appeal No. 18-6615, Nov. 19, 2019. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from WDVA at Roanoke (Jones). Cynthia Anne Barmore for Appellant, Brittany Marie Jones for Appellees. VLW 019-2-278. 16 pp.