In re McWhinney

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that reasonable prison official should have known that depriving inmate of out-of-cell exercise for periods of seven months and eleven months would violate Eighth Amendment
• stating that the' law-^clearly established] that depriving inmates of all meaningful opportunities to exercise generally violates the Eighth Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.”
• noting that “the courts concede that pe-nological consideration may, in certain circumstances, justify [exercise] restrictions”
• explaining that while the denial of out-of-cell exercise opportunities is not per se unconstitutional, a “complete deprivation of exercise for an extended period of time violates [the] Eighth Amendment”
• stating that, as a general rule, a prisoner should be permitted regular out-of-cell exercise
• denying qualified immunity where prisoner was confined for “seven months and eleven months, without any opportunity for out-of-cell exercise”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).