Diaz v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 20 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–1952.,14–1952.
• Citation: 799 F.3d 722
• Parties: Pedro DIAZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Malcolm DAVIDSON, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

799 F.3d 722

Pedro DIAZ, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Malcolm DAVIDSON, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 14–1952.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted May 26, 2015.

Decided Aug. 20, 2015.

Pedro Diaz, Galesburg, IL, pro se.

Clifford Berlow, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants–Appellees.

Before POSNER, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

Judge HAMILTON concurs in the judgment for the reasons given by the district court.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff complains that while he was an inmate of the Pontiac state prison in Illinois the defendants (prison guards, prison grievance officers, the warden, the assistant warden, a “correctional major” at the prison, who is responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the prison, and the director of the Illinois Department of Corrections) refused to equip him with gloves and a hat when he exercised in his outdoor cell in the prison yard in very cold winter weather. According to medical evidence, he needed the exercise to prevent muscles in his back from atrophying because of arthritis, and without gloves and a hat to protect him from intense cold he could not exercise adequately; in particular he could not do chin ups, which he needed for his back—there was a chin-up bar in his outdoor cell (it was the only piece of exercise equipment in the cell) but it was too cold to grasp tightly in very cold weather. His indoor cell was warm enough but tiny—too small for him to be able to do the exercise he needed to do for his back. He claims that the denial of adequate exercise, aggravating his back condition, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of federal law.

The refusal to allow him to wear gloves and a hat was pursuant to a policy that the prison justified on the ground that “offenders in the past have used hats and gloves as a tool for assaulting staff and offenders by placing feces inside the gloves or stocking cap” and “then swing[ing] the hat or gloves in a circular motion to create enough force to fling the feces into a staff member or offender from a distance,” and that “the gloves or hat can also be used by offenders to hide dangerous contraband.” The plaintiff in discovery asked for incident reports of inmates who had used hats or gloves as weapons but was told that because the database of incident reports is searchable only by date of report, the plaintiff's demand was too burdensome to comply with. The district judge agreed.

Prison officials who claim that inmates must be denied exercise that they need have to be able to back up the claim. See, e.g., Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir.2013) ; Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir.2001) ; cf. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1295 (11th Cir.2004). It is difficult to believe that Pontiac prison has no searchable records of inmates' assaults on guards and other prisoners and of their use of hats or gloves to conceal contraband. But if indeed it has no searchable records, this should alter rather than extinguish the plaintiff's right to discovery; in response to the plaintiff's request for evidence to support the defendants' denial of medically needed exercise rights, the defendants should at least be required to present testimony by prison personnel documenting the use of gloves and hats by prisoners as weapons. Failure to respond to a plaintiff's reasonable discovery request was held...