affirming district court order declaring that pre-trial detainees have constitutional right to regular access to outdoor recreation, and limiting number of inmates in county jail having unconstitutional conditions
How later courts described this case
- affirming district court order declaring that pre-trial detainees have constitutional right to regular access to outdoor recreation, and limiting number of inmates in county jail having unconstitutional conditions
- concluding that a federal court could require a prison to adopt a policy allowing inmates to exercise outdoors
- deprivation of exercise not a per se constitutional violation but “may constitute an impairment of health forbidden under the eighth amendment”
- “inmates must be allowed reasonable recreational facilities”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COLEMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the foregoing opinion prepared for the Court by Judge Wisdom, except that I would defer decision of the attorneys’ fees issue until the Supreme Court decides Hutto v. Finney, on which certiorari has been granted [46 L.W. 3256].