Garrett v. Lumpkin

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED

March 22, 2024

No. 22-40754

Lyle W. Cayce

____________ Clerk

Michael Garrett,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division,

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CV-70

______________________________

Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge:

Michael Garrett has been a prisoner in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice system for over thirty years. For the last ten years, his prison

units have afforded him at most three and a half hours of total sleep—and at

most two and a half hours of continuous sleep—per night. Garrett

complained to prison officials on several occasions, explaining that sleep

deprivation poses grave health risks. After the officials failed to take

corrective action, Garrett sued, invoking the Eighth Amendment’s ban on

cruel and unusual punishment. In deciding Garrett’s Eighth Amendment

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

claim, the district court applied the wrong legal standard. Accordingly, we

VACATE and REMAND for the district court to apply the correct legal

standard.

I.

A.

Michael Garrett is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice (the “Department” or “TDCJ”) system, where he has been

incarcerated for over thirty years. Garrett is currently housed in the Estelle

Unit, in Huntsville, Texas, where he has been since February 2020. Before

that, he resided in the McConnell Unit, in Beeville.

The Department operates its prisons, including the Estelle Unit, on

twenty-four-hour schedules. The schedules are chock-full of planned

activities—including meals, work assignments, vocational classes, law-

library time, recreation, showering, clinic appointments, commissary

privileges, and religious services. In fact, the Estelle Unit schedule is so

detailed that it contains nearly 100 daily activities. The result is that inmates

are afforded three and a half hours of sleep per night. “Rack up” (i.e.,

bedtime) is at 10:30 p.m., and breakfast begins around 2:00 a.m. But even

during this three-and-a-half-hour window, sleep is not continuous. Garrett

and other inmates are required to be awake for a 1:00 a.m. bed-book count,1

meaning that the most continuous sleep that Garrett can theoretically receive

is two and a half hours (assuming he falls asleep instantly at 10:30 and sleeps

undisturbed until the bed-book count). And nighttime prison conditions—

namely the hallway lighting, heavy doors slamming, and prisoners yelling—

_____________________

1

During the bed-book count, prison officials ensure that each inmate is accounted

for by requiring the inmates to verbally identify themselves and provide identification.

2

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

further imperil inmates’ sleep prospects during this three-and-a-half-hour

window.

B.

During his term of imprisonment, Garrett has filed multiple

grievances to prison officials, including at the Estelle Unit, concerning sleep

deprivation, all of which met rejection. Accordingly, Garrett sought relief in

a different forum—the courts. In 2013, Garrett sued the Department under

the Eighth Amendment, seeking an injunction that would mandate a prison

schedule with six hours per night designated for sleep. Garrett consented to

have the case tried by a magistrate judge, who dismissed Garrett’s complaint

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for failure to state a claim. Relying on

Walker v. Nunn, 456 F. App’x 419 (5th Cir. 2011), the magistrate judge

reasoned, in relevant part, that “[i]n light of the prison’s security function,

[Garrett] has no constitutional right to a pre-determined number of hours of

uninterrupted sleep each night,” and that, for Garrett “to prevail on his sleep

deprivation claim, [he] would have to establish that he has suffered a physical

injury caused by the alleged sleep deprivation.”

On appeal, this court reversed the district court’s dismissal. We held

that “the sleep deprivation [Garrett] has alleged could plausibly constitute a

denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities sufficient to

satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment inquiry.” Garrett

v. Thaler, 560 F. App’x 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and citation

omitted). In so holding, we distinguished Walker because that case “nowhere

indicate[d] how many hours were devoted to sleep (presumably more than

four) under the prison schedule at issue.” Id. at 379 n.3 (emphasis added).

We also held that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard: to

state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, a prisoner

must show “that his confinement resulted in a deprivation that was

3

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

objectively, sufficiently serious” (the objective component) and that prison

officials were “deliberately indifferent” to “an excessive risk” posed by

those conditions (the subjective component). Id. at 378 (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

Additionally, the district court had “incorrectly held that, in order to

prevail on his sleep deprivation claim, Garrett needed to establish a physical

injury.” Id. at 379 n.3. That standard was wrong, we explained, because “in

the Eighth Amendment context, the physical injury requirement of

§ 1997e(e) does not apply to requests for declaratory or injunctive relief.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted). Garrett’s

allegations of a substantial risk of serious harm were enough to state a claim.

See id. Similarly, we held, Garrett had adequately stated the subjective

component—namely prison officials’ awareness of, and deliberate

indifference to, Garrett’s risk of harm. Id. at 380.

On remand, the suit went to a bench trial before a district judge. The

two-day bench trial in 2018 centered on the impact of the daily schedule in

the McConnell Unit—where Garrett then resided—on Garrett’s health.

Garrett offered unrefuted testimony that the McConnell Unit schedule

permitted only four hours of sleep per night and that sleeping less than four

hours per night creates the risk of serious negative health consequences. The

Department did not timely offer an expert rebutting Garrett’s. Instead, the

Department presented testimony on the penological justifications for the

McConnell Unit schedule, principally the alleged necessity of periodic bed-

book counts during the sleep window and the Unit’s inability to schedule

4

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

rack-up at an earlier time. The Department also argued that “[t]here is no

causation” between Garrett’s sleep deprivation and his medical conditions.2

The district court denied Garrett relief, holding that Garrett had failed

to satisfy his burden as to the objective element of the Eighth Amendment

inquiry. Specifically, the court explained, Garrett “could not establish a

cause-and-effect relationship between his sleep schedule and any medical

complaint” because he “did not offer any expert testimony establishing that

a lack of sufficient uninterrupted sleep has, within reasonable medical

probability,” caused his health conditions.

The court also held that Garrett had failed to satisfy the subjective

element—deliberate indifference. In so holding, the district court

acknowledged that the Department “was . . . aware of [Garrett’s] complaint

and the specific danger that Garrett claims the sleep schedule posed.”

Nonetheless, it held that Garrett could not establish that the officials were

deliberately indifferent because the building schedule was based on a

legitimate penological interest and “Garrett did not provide any evidence

that an alternate 24-hour building schedule could be constructed within the

resources of TDCJ to provide more continuous sleep.” Garrett appealed.

While Garrett’s second appeal was being briefed before this court, the

Department transferred Garrett from the McConnell Unit to the Estelle

Unit. Garrett v. Lumpkin, 840 F. App’x 807, 808 (5th Cir. 2021). We

remanded the case to the district court for it to consider whether Garrett was

similarly being deprived of sleep at the Estelle Unit and, if so, whether that

deprivation violates the Eighth Amendment. Id.

_____________________

2

Garrett suffers from migraines, seizures, vertigo, a skin condition, edema,

hypertension, and kidney disease.

5

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

On remand, the parties agreed to conduct limited additional discovery

as to conditions in the Estelle Unit. After reviewing the new evidence, the

district court found that the sleeping schedule and conditions imposed on

Garrett in the Estelle Unit were essentially the same as, and even slightly

worse than, those in the McConnell Unit. Specifically, the district court

found that Garrett “can get only three and one-half hours of sleep, which is

further interrupted by hourly cell door operations, bright lights, and a bed-

book count at 1:00 a.m.” Nevertheless, the district court concluded that such

conditions did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation because

Garrett had failed to “sustain[] his burden of proof to show that sleep

deprivation is sufficiently linked to his health complaints to establish that the

TDCJ building schedule poses a substantial risk of serious harm”—i.e., to

show a cause-and-effect relationship. And the district court concluded that

Garrett had not satisfied his burden under the subjective element because, in

relevant part, “the evidence reflects . . . that the Building Schedule is

formulated for legitimate penological purposes.” The district court reasoned

that Garrett had failed to satisfy the subjective element because “[n]othing

in the evidence suggests that TDCJ is engaged in conduct designed to

intentionally inflict sleep deprivation on inmates.” Garrett appealed.

II.

“The standard of review for a bench trial is well established: findings

of fact are reviewed for clear error and legal issues are reviewed de novo.”

Barto v. Shore Const., L.L.C., 801 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting

Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 586 F.3d 358, 365 (5th Cir. 2009)). Where the

district court’s application of the wrong legal standard may have influenced

its ultimate conclusion, remand is proper. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510

U.S. 17, 23 (1993); see also June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512,

521–22 (5th Cir. 2022) (remanding one issue because the district court

applied the incorrect legal standard).

6

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

III.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual

punishments,” U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and “[t]he treatment a prisoner

receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject

to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment,” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332

(5th Cir. 2004). To amount to cruel and unusual punishment, prison

conditions “must pose ‘an unreasonable risk of serious damage’ to a

prisoner’s health—an objective test—and prison officials must have acted

with deliberate indifference to the risk posed—a subjective test.” Ball v.

LeBlanc, 792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 33–35 (1993)).

In assessing Garrett’s Eighth Amendment claim, the district court

made two key errors. First, the district court held that, because Garrett failed

to show that his sleep deprivation—which was undisputed—actually caused

his health issues, he had not satisfied the objective element of cruel and

unusual punishment. But to satisfy the objective component, a prisoner need

only show a substantial risk of serious harm—not actual harm. Second, the

district court held that, because the Department had “legitimate penological

purposes” for implementing the Estelle Unit schedule, and because the

Department did not “engage[] in conduct designed to intentionally inflict

sleep deprivation on inmates,” Garrett failed to satisfy the subjective element

of his Eighth Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court has clarified that a

prison’s penological purpose has no bearing on whether an inmate has shown

“deliberate indifference” for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim.

Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 511 (2005). We explain each error in turn.

A.

First, the objective element. As the Supreme Court has explained,

“[i]t is ‘cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe

7

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

conditions,’” regardless of whether those conditions actually cause injury.

Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315–16

(1982)). After all, “[i]t would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who

plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the

ground that nothing yet had happened to them.” Id. Thus, we have

explained, “inmates need not show that death or serious injury has already

occurred” to prove that unconstitutional prison conditions exist under the

objective element. Ball, 792 F.3d at 593. Rather, they “need only show that

there is a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. (quotation marks and citations

omitted) (emphasis added).

In Ball, the state argued that because “no death-row prisoner has ever

suffered a heat-related incident” and the inmate’s “medical records show no

signs of heat-related illness,” the inmate could not show an unreasonable risk

of serious heat-related injury. Id. This court rejected that argument,

explaining that the inmate did not need to show that he had actually suffered

from heat-related illness but instead only that he was at substantial risk of

serious harm. Id.

Here, the district court held that, “to establish that the

[Department’s] building schedule poses a substantial risk of serious harm,”

Garrett bears the “burden of proof to show that sleep deprivation is

sufficiently linked to his health complaints.” But the case law makes clear

that Garrett must only show a substantial risk of serious harm—not actual

harm. Yet, despite acknowledging that Garrett needed only to show a

“substantial risk” of serious harm, the district court nonetheless required

evidence of actual harm to Garrett’s health. That is the wrong standard. And

where the district court applies the wrong legal standard, it is proper to

remand to the district court with instructions to apply the correct legal

standard. See Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. at 23; Klick v. Cenikor Found., 94 F.4th

8

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

362, 2024 WL 502910, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2024); June Med., 22 F.4th at

521–22; Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 157 (5th Cir. 2010).

B.

Next, the subjective element. To satisfy the subjective element of an

Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, a prisoner must show

that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the risk posed.

Ball, 792 F.3d at 592. Here, the district court applied the “penological

purpose” test set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), under which

a prison regulation impinging on inmates’ constitutional rights is nonetheless

valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. But again, this

is the wrong test here. As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v.

California, the penological-purpose test does not apply in the Eighth

Amendment context. 543 U.S. at 511.

In Turner, an inmate brought First and Fourteenth Amendment

challenges against state prison regulations restricting correspondence

between inmates at separate prisons and restricting inmates’ ability to marry.

482 U.S. at 81–82. The Supreme Court held that “when a prison regulation

impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. at 89. After

Turner, we applied this penological-interest test (also called “penological

purpose”) in at least one Eighth Amendment prison-conditions case. See

Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 1998). But, in the wake of Talib, the

Supreme Court clarified in Johnson that Turner’s penological-purpose test

does not apply to Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims. 543

U.S. at 511.

Johnson involved an equal-protection challenge to a prison’s policy of

race-based segregation of prisoners during their first sixty days of

incarceration. Id. at 502. The Supreme Court explained that “we have not

9

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

used Turner to evaluate Eighth Amendment claims of cruel and unusual

punishment in prison” and instead “judge violations of that Amendment

under the ‘deliberate indifference’ standard, rather than Turner’s

‘reasonably related’ [to a legitimate penological purpose] standard.” Id. at

511.3 It explained that Turner’s penological-purpose test applies only to

limitations on constitutional rights that are “inconsistent with proper

incarceration”—i.e., rights that must necessarily be limited in the prison

context—and to some due-process claims. Id. at 510. The Court all the while

emphasized that “the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on full

compliance with the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 511.

The Department argues that this language from Johnson constitutes

dicta and should thus be disregarded as non-binding. We disagree that

Johnson’s statement concerning the applicability of the penological-purpose

test is dicta. In this circuit, “if the statement is necessary to the result or

constitutes an explication of the governing rules of law, it is not dictum.” U.S.

Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Verizon Commc’ns., Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 427–28 (5th Cir.

2014) (quoting Int’l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray, 372 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir.

2004)) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). In Johnson, the

Supreme Court explained, in detail, contexts in which the penological-

interest test governs and where it does not. That explication included the

_____________________

3

In this circuit, the only post-Johnson opinions applying the penological-purpose

test to Eighth Amendment claims are unpublished. See Walker v. Nunn, 456 F. App’x 419,

422 (5th Cir. 2011); Garcia v. Currie, 674 F. App’x 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Morris

v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 749 n.9 (5th Cir. 2014) (expressing doubt that the penological-

purpose test applies in the Eighth Amendment context). Unpublished opinions are, of

course, non-precedential. 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4; Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d

199, 206 n.2 (5th Cir. 2017). District courts in this circuit, moreover, continue to regularly

apply the penological-purpose test in analyzing Eighth Amendment conditions-of-

confinement claims. Those decisions are likewise non-binding. This decision offers clarity

to lower courts in fielding conditions-of-confinement claims.

10

Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/22/2024

No. 22-40754

Court’s pronouncement that the penological-interest test does not apply to

Eighth Amendment actions.4

Johnson therefore instructs that the district court applied the wrong

legal standard here. Vacatur and remand is warranted so that the district

court may apply the correct legal standard. See Klick, 2024 WL 502910, at *1;

June Med., 22 F.4th at 521–22; Hakim, 628 F.3d at 157.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE and REMAND for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

_____________________

4

Even if the above-described language from Johnson were dicta, moreover, this

Court is “generally bound by Supreme Court dicta” where that dicta is “recent and

detailed.” Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 448 (5th Cir. 2016). Johnson is a 2005 decision,

and it is unclear what constitutes “recent” for Hollis purposes. But Johnson’s

pronouncement is crystal clear and supported by ample authority and explanation: the

penological-purpose test does not apply in the Eighth Amendment context. 543 U.S. at 511.

In any event, circuit courts treat Supreme Court dicta with greater reverence than dicta

emanating from a fellow circuit-court panel. Compare Gearlds v. Entergy Servs., Inc., 709

F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2013) (the Fifth Circuit “give[s] . . . serious consideration to . . .

recent and detailed” Supreme Court dicta), with United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323, 328–

29 (5th Cir. 2014) (this court is “free to disregard” “dictum” “from prior panel

opinions”).

11