Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
March 22, 2024
No. 22-40754
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Michael Garrett,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CV-70
______________________________
Before Clement, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge:
Michael Garrett has been a prisoner in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice system for over thirty years. For the last ten years, his prison
units have afforded him at most three and a half hours of total sleep—and at
most two and a half hours of continuous sleep—per night. Garrett
complained to prison officials on several occasions, explaining that sleep
deprivation poses grave health risks. After the officials failed to take
corrective action, Garrett sued, invoking the Eighth Amendment’s ban on
cruel and unusual punishment. In deciding Garrett’s Eighth Amendment
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
claim, the district court applied the wrong legal standard. Accordingly, we
VACATE and REMAND for the district court to apply the correct legal
standard.
I.
A.
Michael Garrett is a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (the “Department” or “TDCJ”) system, where he has been
incarcerated for over thirty years. Garrett is currently housed in the Estelle
Unit, in Huntsville, Texas, where he has been since February 2020. Before
that, he resided in the McConnell Unit, in Beeville.
The Department operates its prisons, including the Estelle Unit, on
twenty-four-hour schedules. The schedules are chock-full of planned
activities—including meals, work assignments, vocational classes, lawlibrary time, recreation, showering, clinic appointments, commissary
privileges, and religious services. In fact, the Estelle Unit schedule is so
detailed that it contains nearly 100 daily activities. The result is that inmates
are afforded three and a half hours of sleep per night. “Rack up” (i.e.,
bedtime) is at 10:30 p.m., and breakfast begins around 2:00 a.m. But even
during this three-and-a-half-hour window, sleep is not continuous. Garrett
and other inmates are required to be awake for a 1:00 a.m. bed-book count,1
meaning that the most continuous sleep that Garrett can theoretically receive
is two and a half hours (assuming he falls asleep instantly at 10:30 and sleeps
undisturbed until the bed-book count). And nighttime prison conditions—
namely the hallway lighting, heavy doors slamming, and prisoners yelling—
_____________________
1
During the bed-book count, prison officials ensure that each inmate is accounted
for by requiring the inmates to verbally identify themselves and provide identification.
2
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
further imperil inmates’ sleep prospects during this three-and-a-half-hour
window.
B.
During his term of imprisonment, Garrett has filed multiple
grievances to prison officials, including at the Estelle Unit, concerning sleep
deprivation, all of which met rejection. Accordingly, Garrett sought relief in
a different forum—the courts. In 2013, Garrett sued the Department under
the Eighth Amendment, seeking an injunction that would mandate a prison
schedule with six hours per night designated for sleep. Garrett consented to
have the case tried by a magistrate judge, who dismissed Garrett’s complaint
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act for failure to state a claim. Relying on
Walker v. Nunn, 456 F. App’x 419 (5th Cir. 2011), the magistrate judge
reasoned, in relevant part, that “[i]n light of the prison’s security function,
[Garrett] has no constitutional right to a pre-determined number of hours of
uninterrupted sleep each night,” and that, for Garrett “to prevail on his sleep
deprivation claim, [he] would have to establish that he has suffered a physical
injury caused by the alleged sleep deprivation.”
On appeal, this court reversed the district court’s dismissal. We held
that “the sleep deprivation [Garrett] has alleged could plausibly constitute a
denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities sufficient to
satisfy the objective component of the Eighth Amendment inquiry.” Garrett
v. Thaler, 560 F. App’x 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). In so holding, we distinguished Walker because that case “nowhere
indicate[d] how many hours were devoted to sleep (presumably more than
four) under the prison schedule at issue.”
Id. at 379 n.3 (emphasis added).
We also held that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard: to
state an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, a prisoner
must show “that his confinement resulted in a deprivation that was
3
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
objectively, sufficiently serious” (the objective component) and that prison
officials were “deliberately indifferent” to “an excessive risk” posed by
those conditions (the subjective component). Id. at 378 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
Additionally, the district court had “incorrectly held that, in order to
prevail on his sleep deprivation claim, Garrett needed to establish a physical
injury.” Id. at 379 n.3. That standard was wrong, we explained, because “in
the Eighth Amendment context, the physical injury requirement of
§ 1997e(e) does not apply to requests for declaratory or injunctive relief.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted). Garrett’s
allegations of a substantial risk of serious harm were enough to state a claim.
See id. Similarly, we held, Garrett had adequately stated the subjective
component—namely prison officials’ awareness of, and deliberate
indifference to, Garrett’s risk of harm. Id. at 380.
On remand, the suit went to a bench trial before a district judge. The
two-day bench trial in 2018 centered on the impact of the daily schedule in
the McConnell Unit—where Garrett then resided—on Garrett’s health.
Garrett offered unrefuted testimony that the McConnell Unit schedule
permitted only four hours of sleep per night and that sleeping less than four
hours per night creates the risk of serious negative health consequences. The
Department did not timely offer an expert rebutting Garrett’s. Instead, the
Department presented testimony on the penological justifications for the
McConnell Unit schedule, principally the alleged necessity of periodic bed-book counts during the sleep window and the Unit’s inability to schedule
4
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
rack-up at an earlier time. The Department also argued that “[t]here is no
causation” between Garrett’s sleep deprivation and his medical conditions.2
The district court denied Garrett relief, holding that Garrett had failed
to satisfy his burden as to the objective element of the Eighth Amendment
inquiry. Specifically, the court explained, Garrett “could not establish a
cause-and-effect relationship between his sleep schedule and any medical
complaint” because he “did not offer any expert testimony establishing that
a lack of sufficient uninterrupted sleep has, within reasonable medical
probability,” caused his health conditions.
The court also held that Garrett had failed to satisfy the subjective
element—deliberate indifference. In so holding, the district court
acknowledged that the Department “was . . . aware of [Garrett’s] complaint
and the specific danger that Garrett claims the sleep schedule posed.”
Nonetheless, it held that Garrett could not establish that the officials were
deliberately indifferent because the building schedule was based on a
legitimate penological interest and “Garrett did not provide any evidence
that an alternate 24-hour building schedule could be constructed within the
resources of TDCJ to provide more continuous sleep.” Garrett appealed.
While Garrett’s second appeal was being briefed before this court, the
Department transferred Garrett from the McConnell Unit to the Estelle
Unit. Garrett v. Lumpkin, 840 F. App’x 807, 808 (5th Cir. 2021). We
remanded the case to the district court for it to consider whether Garrett was
similarly being deprived of sleep at the Estelle Unit and, if so, whether that
deprivation violates the Eighth Amendment.
Id.
_____________________
2
Garrett suffers from migraines, seizures, vertigo, a skin condition, edema,
hypertension, and kidney disease.
5
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
On remand, the parties agreed to conduct limited additional discovery
as to conditions in the Estelle Unit. After reviewing the new evidence, the
district court found that the sleeping schedule and conditions imposed on
Garrett in the Estelle Unit were essentially the same as, and even slightly
worse than, those in the McConnell Unit. Specifically, the district court
found that Garrett “can get only three and one-half hours of sleep, which is
further interrupted by hourly cell door operations, bright lights, and a bed-book count at 1:00 a.m.” Nevertheless, the district court concluded that such
conditions did not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation because
Garrett had failed to “sustain[] his burden of proof to show that sleep
deprivation is sufficiently linked to his health complaints to establish that the
TDCJ building schedule poses a substantial risk of serious harm”—i.e., to
show a cause-and-effect relationship. And the district court concluded that
Garrett had not satisfied his burden under the subjective element because, in
relevant part, “the evidence reflects . . . that the Building Schedule is
formulated for legitimate penological purposes.” The district court reasoned
that Garrett had failed to satisfy the subjective element because “[n]othing
in the evidence suggests that TDCJ is engaged in conduct designed to
intentionally inflict sleep deprivation on inmates.” Garrett appealed.
II.
“The standard of review for a bench trial is well established: findings
of fact are reviewed for clear error and legal issues are reviewed de novo.”
Barto v. Shore Const., L.L.C., 801 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Becker v. Tidewater, Inc.,
586 F.3d 358, 365 (5th Cir. 2009)). Where the
district court’s application of the wrong legal standard may have influenced
its ultimate conclusion, remand is proper. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.,
510
U.S. 17, 23 (1993); see also June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips,
22 F.4th 512,
521–22 (5th Cir. 2022) (remanding one issue because the district court
applied the incorrect legal standard).
6
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
III.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishments,” U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and “[t]he treatment a prisoner
receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject
to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment,” Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332
(5th Cir. 2004). To amount to cruel and unusual punishment, prison
conditions “must pose ‘an unreasonable risk of serious damage’ to a
prisoner’s health—an objective test—and prison officials must have acted
with deliberate indifference to the risk posed—a subjective test.” Ball v.
LeBlanc,
792 F.3d 584, 592 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Helling v. McKinney,
509
U.S. 25, 33–35 (1993)).
In assessing Garrett’s Eighth Amendment claim, the district court
made two key errors. First, the district court held that, because Garrett failed
to show that his sleep deprivation—which was undisputed—actually caused
his health issues, he had not satisfied the objective element of cruel and
unusual punishment. But to satisfy the objective component, a prisoner need
only show a substantial risk of serious harm—not actual harm. Second, the
district court held that, because the Department had “legitimate penological
purposes” for implementing the Estelle Unit schedule, and because the
Department did not “engage[] in conduct designed to intentionally inflict
sleep deprivation on inmates,” Garrett failed to satisfy the subjective element
of his Eighth Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court has clarified that a
prison’s penological purpose has no bearing on whether an inmate has shown
“deliberate indifference” for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim.
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 511 (2005). We explain each error in turn.
A.
First, the objective element. As the Supreme Court has explained,
“[i]t is ‘cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe
7
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
conditions,’” regardless of whether those conditions actually cause injury.
Helling, 509 U.S. at 33 (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo,
457 U.S. 307, 315–16
(1982)). After all, “[i]t would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who
plainly proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their prison on the
ground that nothing yet had happened to them.”
Id. Thus, we have
explained, “inmates need not show that death or serious injury has already
occurred” to prove that unconstitutional prison conditions exist under the
objective element. Ball,
792 F.3d at 593. Rather, they “need only show that
there is a substantial risk of serious harm.”
Id. (quotation marks and citations
omitted) (emphasis added).
In Ball, the state argued that because “no death-row prisoner has ever
suffered a heat-related incident” and the inmate’s “medical records show no
signs of heat-related illness,” the inmate could not show an unreasonable risk
of serious heat-related injury. Id. This court rejected that argument,
explaining that the inmate did not need to show that he had actually suffered
from heat-related illness but instead only that he was at substantial risk of
serious harm.
Id.
Here, the district court held that, “to establish that the
[Department’s] building schedule poses a substantial risk of serious harm,”
Garrett bears the “burden of proof to show that sleep deprivation is
sufficiently linked to his health complaints.” But the case law makes clear
that Garrett must only show a substantial risk of serious harm—not actual
harm. Yet, despite acknowledging that Garrett needed only to show a
“substantial risk” of serious harm, the district court nonetheless required
evidence of actual harm to Garrett’s health. That is the wrong standard. And
where the district court applies the wrong legal standard, it is proper to
remand to the district court with instructions to apply the correct legal
standard. See Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. at 23; Klick v. Cenikor Found.,
94 F.4th
8
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
362, 2024 WL 502910, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2024); June Med., 22 F.4th at
521–22; Hakim v. Holder,
628 F.3d 151, 157 (5th Cir. 2010).
B.
Next, the subjective element. To satisfy the subjective element of an
Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, a prisoner must show
that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the risk posed.
Ball, 792 F.3d at 592. Here, the district court applied the “penological
purpose” test set forth in Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 (1987), under which
a prison regulation impinging on inmates’ constitutional rights is nonetheless
valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. But again, this
is the wrong test here. As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v.
California, the penological-purpose test does not apply in the Eighth
Amendment context.
543 U.S. at 511.
In Turner, an inmate brought First and Fourteenth Amendment
challenges against state prison regulations restricting correspondence
between inmates at separate prisons and restricting inmates’ ability to marry.
482 U.S. at 81–82. The Supreme Court held that “when a prison regulation
impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. at 89. After
Turner, we applied this penological-interest test (also called “penological
purpose”) in at least one Eighth Amendment prison-conditions case. See
Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 1998). But, in the wake of Talib, the
Supreme Court clarified in Johnson that Turner’s penological-purpose test
does not apply to Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims.
543
U.S. at 511.
Johnson involved an equal-protection challenge to a prison’s policy of
race-based segregation of prisoners during their first sixty days of
incarceration. Id. at 502. The Supreme Court explained that “we have not
9
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
used Turner to evaluate Eighth Amendment claims of cruel and unusual
punishment in prison” and instead “judge violations of that Amendment
under the ‘deliberate indifference’ standard, rather than Turner’s
‘reasonably related’ [to a legitimate penological purpose] standard.” Id. at
511.3 It explained that Turner’s penological-purpose test applies only to
limitations on constitutional rights that are “inconsistent with proper
incarceration”—i.e., rights that must necessarily be limited in the prison
context—and to some due-process claims.
Id. at 510. The Court all the while
emphasized that “the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on full
compliance with the Eighth Amendment.”
Id. at 511.
The Department argues that this language from Johnson constitutes
dicta and should thus be disregarded as non-binding. We disagree that
Johnson’s statement concerning the applicability of the penological-purpose
test is dicta. In this circuit, “if the statement is necessary to the result or
constitutes an explication of the governing rules of law, it is not dictum.” U.S.
Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Verizon Commc’ns., Inc., 761 F.3d 409, 427–28 (5th Cir.
2014) (quoting Int’l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray,
372 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir.
2004)) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). In Johnson, the
Supreme Court explained, in detail, contexts in which the penological-interest test governs and where it does not. That explication included the
_____________________
3
In this circuit, the only post-Johnson opinions applying the penological-purpose
test to Eighth Amendment claims are unpublished. See Walker v. Nunn, 456 F. App’x 419,
422 (5th Cir. 2011); Garcia v. Currie,
674 F. App’x 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Morris
v. Livingston,
739 F.3d 740, 749 n.9 (5th Cir. 2014) (expressing doubt that the penological-purpose test applies in the Eighth Amendment context). Unpublished opinions are, of
course, non-precedential. 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4; Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions,
875 F.3d
199, 206 n.2 (5th Cir. 2017). District courts in this circuit, moreover, continue to regularly
apply the penological-purpose test in analyzing Eighth Amendment conditions-ofconfinement claims. Those decisions are likewise non-binding. This decision offers clarity
to lower courts in fielding conditions-of-confinement claims.
10
Case: 22-40754 Document: 64-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
No. 22-40754
Court’s pronouncement that the penological-interest test does not apply to
Eighth Amendment actions.4
Johnson therefore instructs that the district court applied the wrong
legal standard here. Vacatur and remand is warranted so that the district
court may apply the correct legal standard. See Klick, 2024 WL 502910, at *1;
June Med., 22 F.4th at 521–22; Hakim,
628 F.3d at 157.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE and REMAND for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
_____________________
4
Even if the above-described language from Johnson were dicta, moreover, this
Court is “generally bound by Supreme Court dicta” where that dicta is “recent and
detailed.” Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 448 (5th Cir. 2016). Johnson is a 2005 decision,
and it is unclear what constitutes “recent” for Hollis purposes. But Johnson’s
pronouncement is crystal clear and supported by ample authority and explanation: the
penological-purpose test does not apply in the Eighth Amendment context.
543 U.S. at 511.
In any event, circuit courts treat Supreme Court dicta with greater reverence than dicta
emanating from a fellow circuit-court panel. Compare Gearlds v. Entergy Servs., Inc.,
709
F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2013) (the Fifth Circuit “give[s] . . . serious consideration to . . .
recent and detailed” Supreme Court dicta), with United States v. Segura,
747 F.3d 323, 328–
29 (5th Cir. 2014) (this court is “free to disregard” “dictum” “from prior panel
opinions”).
11
