12. Exercise and recreation.

U.S. District Court OUTDOOR EXERCISE

Caldwell v. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2001). An inmate filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia and several employees of its corrections department, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denial of medical care. A jury entered a verdict in favor of the inmate, on all claims, and awarded $174,178. The appeals court granted judgment for the defendants as a matter of law, in part, denied judgment for the defendants in part, and did not reduce the damage award. The court found that statements by the inmate's attorney during his closing argument, suggesting specific dollar amounts to be considered by the jury, did not warrant a new trial. The appeals court held that findings that conditions were unconstitutional were supported by evidence, as were findings that officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's serious medical needs. The appeals court held that the inmate's exposure to feces in his cell, foul water, filth, excessive heat, smoke, and mace, and the lack of outdoor exercise, resulted in a substantial risk of serious harm. (Maximum Security Facility, Lorton Correctional Complex, District of Columbia)

U.S. Appeals Court TELEVISION

Love v. McKune, 33 Fed.Appx. 369 (10th Cir. 2002). Four prison inmates brought a civil rights action challenging their forced participation in a prison incentive level system that tied inmate privileges to participation in programs and good behavior. The district court dismissed the action and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that forced participation did not violate the inmates' Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) system assigned inmates to one of four levels. Each level had a corresponding level of privileges, such as television ownership, handicrafts, participation in organizations, use of outside funds, canteen expenditures, incentive pay, and visitation. The system had been previously upheld by the state supreme court, which found that none of the restrictions denied to inmates on lower levels infringed on inmates' property or liberty interests and therefore did not implicate due process protection. The appeals court noted that denying an inmate the use of certain electronic equipment does not impose a significant hardship, nor do restrictions on canteen purchases or the types of purchases and personal property allowed. (Lansing Correctional Facility, Kansas)