Opinion ID: 4519780
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exercise claim (Count 5)

Text: Khan’s allegation that during a three-year-plus period he was allowed outdoors to exercise only three times per week and for a maximum of 2.5 hours per week fails to show an objectively substantial risk of serious harm. Khan cites no case establishing an Eighth Amendment violation for limiting outdoor exercise to 2.5 hours per week, nor are we aware of any. To the contrary, in Bailey v. Shillinger, regarding excessive-force claims, the subjective component of the Farmer test applies to a pretrial detainee’s claims regarding conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care. See, e.g., Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 991 n.9 (10th Cir. 2019) (recognizing issue but declining to resolve it). We need not answer that question today because all of Khan’s preserved Eighth Amendment claims stand or fall under either standard. 13 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), this court held that providing one hour of outdoor exercise per week does not, “without more,” violate the Eighth Amendment. We see nothing “more” in the SAC that plausibly elevates Khan’s allegations into a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Nor has Khan offered anything that leads us to believe he could remedy this deficiency by further amending his complaint. Dismissal of Count 5 for failure to state a claim for relief was therefore proper.