Brenizer v. County of Sherburne, The

Background

Plaintiffs were pretrial detainees and convicted inmates housed at the Sherburne County Jail during the COVID-19 pandemic. They brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging that the County was responsible under Monell for policies and customs that unconstitutionally restricted their exercise. The claims arose under the Eighth Amendment for convicted inmates and the Fourteenth Amendment for pretrial detainees.

Before the pandemic, inmates were generally allowed one hour of gym activity five days per week, although gym access depended on advance sign-up, available recreation staff, and other rules. Beginning by April 1, 2020, the jail suspended gym recreation. Inmates could still walk in the dayroom, exercise in their cells, request an in-cell workout program, and participate in other activities. The jail relied on guidance from the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Department of Corrections, the County’s health department, and a pandemic-response team. The gyms reopened on July 6, 2021, with limited access and remained subject to restrictions during COVID-19 outbreaks.

The plaintiffs alleged injuries including weight changes, muscle atrophy, pain, anxiety, depression, high blood pressure, hypertension, fatigue, vitamin D deficiency, and high cholesterol. They sought damages and injunctive relief requiring the jail to allow at least seven hours of exercise per week. The court had previously denied their request to certify the case as a class action.

Summary judgment and physical-injury requirement

The County moved for summary judgment, which requires judgment when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court first considered the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s physical-injury limitation. That law generally prevents a prisoner from recovering damages for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. The court held that the injuries plaintiffs attributed to the gym restrictions were no more than minor injuries and did not satisfy that requirement. The court also explained that any physical injury had to be connected to the challenged conduct; unrelated preexisting conditions were not enough.

Injunctive and declaratory relief

The court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief because none remained at the Sherburne County Jail. Their claims concerning the jail’s conditions were therefore moot. The court also rejected their argument that the issue was likely to recur while escaping review, finding no evidence that these plaintiffs would again face similar policies and noting that the challenged pandemic policies were no longer in place.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act also required plaintiffs to complete available jail grievance procedures before filing suit. Brenizer, Fairbanks, and Haynes filed grievances about the first period of gym closures but did not appeal the denials. They did not challenge the later closures. Lee, Jama, and Lincoln did not file grievances about the exercise restrictions.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that exhaustion was excused because the grievance process was a dead end, too confusing to use, or subject to retaliation. The court found that the process remained available because plaintiffs could appeal, that changing COVID-19 policies did not make the grievance policy itself unclear, and that the evidence of retaliation consisted of unsupported declarations. The court concluded that none of the plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies and stated that the case could be dismissed on that basis alone.

Constitutional claims

The court nevertheless addressed the merits. For the policy claim, it applied factors concerning the opportunity to leave the cell, recreation available inside the cell, cell size, and the length of confinement. The court found that plaintiffs generally could leave their cells for several hours per day when not in lockdown or segregation, walk in the dayroom, engage in other recreation, and use in-cell workout guides. The court also found that photographs contradicted plaintiffs’ claim that the cells were too small for in-cell exercise and noted that two plaintiffs admitted exercising in their cells.

The court held that the County was not deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs’ exercise needs. It found that the gym closures were not inhumane or equivalent to punishment and were reasonable responses to the risks of COVID-19 transmission. The court declined to second-guess the County’s reliance on public-health recommendations during the pandemic. Because plaintiffs had not shown a constitutional violation, their related Monell custom claim also failed.

Disposition

The court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. It directed that judgment be entered accordingly.