## Facts

- Three Virginia death-row prisoners confined at Sussex I State Prison sued state corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging death-row conditions.
- Under the challenged regime, prisoners were held alone in small cells for 23–24 hours per day for years, with no congregate religious, educational, or social programming.
- Meals were eaten in-cell; congregate recreation was denied; and outdoor recreation, when permitted, was limited and conducted in small enclosures.
- Cells were continuously illuminated, and human contact was largely limited to brief staff interactions and restricted, typically non-contact visits.
- Plaintiffs presented expert evidence and research linking prolonged, highly isolating confinement to serious psychological and emotional harms.
- During litigation, the prison system changed several death-row conditions, but officials retained discretion to revert to prior practices.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, found an Eighth Amendment violation, and entered prospective injunctive relief limiting reinstatement of the prior regime; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether voluntary policy changes during litigation mooted the case or eliminated plaintiffs’ standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.
2. Whether the challenged death-row conditions constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, requiring (a) an objectively substantial risk of serious harm and deprivation of a basic human need, and (b) officials’ deliberate indifference.
3. Whether the injunction satisfied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirements that relief be narrowly drawn, necessary, and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment and injunction.
- The case was not moot because defendants did not carry the heavy burden to show the challenged practices could not reasonably be expected to recur.
- The death-row conditions violated the Eighth Amendment because they deprived prisoners of meaningful social interaction and environmental stimulation and posed a substantial risk of serious psychological and emotional harm.
- Officials were deliberately indifferent where the risk from long-term isolation was well-documented, and defendants maintained the regime despite notice and the ability to change it.
- The injunction complied with the PLRA because it was tailored to prevent reinstatement of the unconstitutional combination of extreme isolation and deprivation of stimulation, and a clear danger of recurrence supported prospective relief.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary cessation does not moot a case unless the defendant shows it is absolutely clear the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur.
- Conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment when they deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities or create a substantial risk of serious harm.
- Meaningful social interaction and positive environmental stimulation may qualify as basic human needs for Eighth Amendment purposes, particularly in the context of long-term, near-total isolation.
- Deliberate indifference is shown when officials know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.
- Under the PLRA, prospective relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary, and be the least intrusive means to correct the constitutional violation; a demonstrated risk of recurrence can justify an injunction preventing reinstatement of unlawful conditions.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld findings that Virginia’s prior death-row confinement regime—marked by long-term, near-total isolation and deprivation of social and environmental stimulation—created an unconstitutional risk of serious psychological harm, and it affirmed a PLRA-compliant injunction to prevent officials from returning to those conditions despite intervening policy changes.


Porter v. Clarke, 923 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2019)