Smalls v. Bailey et al.

Samuel Smalls, an incarcerated individual in Maryland, was held in solitary confinement for almost a year without access to any out-of-cell exercise or outdoor recreation whatsoever. The district court denied his claims, accepting Defendants’ theory rather than engaging with the Fourth Circuit case law expressly finding conditions like those faced by Mr. Smalls are unconstitutional. The MacArthur Justice Center is dedicated to ensuring individuals like Mr. Smalls are not held in unconstitutional conditions such as these that cause an extreme risk to their mental and physical health. 

In 2022, Mr. Smalls was placed in solitary confinement. He was placed there after he refused to wear proper clothing to court and was charged with a disciplinary violation. Just eleven days later, his disciplinary charge was reduced, and he was eligible to return to general population. Rather than move him to general population, though, the Defendants kept him in solitary confinement for over 300 days, where he did not have access to any outdoor recreation or out-of-cell exercise whatsoever. His only time out of his cell was when he was brought to an empty dayroom for 3 hours per week, in which he could not exercise. Further due to “staffing limitations,” this time was often denied to him, and he was kept in his cell for the full 24 hours per day.  

Mr. Smalls sued various prison officials for this violation of both his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Despite Fourth Circuit law that clearly states that depriving an incarcerated individual of out-of-cell exercise is an Eighth Amendment violation, the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding that Mr. Smalls failed to allege a proper injury under the Eighth Amendment. We argued that Fourth Circuit law shows that the risk of physical or psychological injury created by solitary confinement is enough to satisfy the Eighth Amendment. We also argued that a jury could infer the injury given the length and nature of Mr. Smalls’ confinement.  

We also argued that Mr. Smalls’ Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because Defendants kept him in such restrictive conditions without proper procedural protections, like notice and the opportunity to be heard. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on this claim as well, crediting Defendants’ claim that Mr. Smalls “consented” to his time in solitary confinement. We argued any claim that Mr. Smalls, an individual in the custody and control of Defendants, consented to these unconstitutional conditions is unfounded and that the district court erred by accepting Defendants’ theory rather than crediting Mr. Smalls’ version of the facts, as it must at the summary judgment stage.