Opinion ID: 729914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waupaca County

Text: 13 Although a local governmental unit is subject to suit under § 1983, its policy or practice must be the source of the constitutional violation. McTigue v. City of Chicago, 60 F.3d 381, 382 (7th Cir.1995). This court has stated: 14 Case law recognizes three ways in which a municipality's policy can violate an individual's civil rights: (1) an express policy that, when enforced, causes a constitutional deprivation; (2) 'a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law'; or (3) an allegation that the constitutional injury was caused by a person with 'final policymaking authority.'  15 Id. (citations omitted). 16 In accord with our decision that a temporary denial of telephone access did not deny Dietzen his constitutional rights, we hold that the county (which otherwise may have been liable under the policymaker doctrine, see Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 (1986)), is not liable for any such deprivation. Further, Dietzen presents no evidence to support a contention that the county had a policy or practice of placing detainees in segregation to force them to accept detrimental plea agreements. Dietzen's claims regarding the conditions of his confinement, including the lack of recreation and health care facilities, may be construed as a challenge to the county's policies regarding the administration of the Waupaca County Jail. These claims are meritless, however, because Dietzen fails to show that the jail does not provide access to health care when necessary (Dietzen himself was taken for a mental evaluation), and defendants submitted evidence that health care was available. Additionally, we have previously recognized that inmates confined for short periods of time without out-of-cell exercise opportunities do not necessarily have a constitutional claim. Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1236 (7th Cir.1988). Rather, lack of exercise rises to a constitutional violation only where movement is denied and muscles are allowed to atrophy, [and] the health of the individual is threatened. French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir.1985). Dietzen has not shown that the county's administration of the jail results in such constitutional deprivation.