Opinion ID: 73336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Correctional Officers

Text: Wilson contends that correctional officers Parks and Hopkins also denied him access to a law library and exercise as well as placed him in disciplinary isolation without proper bedding. There is no evidence in the record that Parks or Hopkins had any discretionary authority regarding implementing policies or procedures at MCJ; consequently, they were not responsible for the lack of a law library or exercise space at MCJ. As we additionally have discussed, the lack of a law library, outdoor exercise, or more space for indoor exercise did not violate clearly established law as to Wilson's constitutional rights while he was at MCJ. Accordingly, Parks and Hopkins are entitled to qualified immunity concerning these issues. We limit our analysis to Wilson's complaints concerning his disciplinary isolation. Wilson represents that, on two separate occasions, Parks and Hopkins each placed him in disciplinary isolation as sanctions for respect to Wilson during the time that he was at MCJ, which also would entitle them to qualified immunity. 27 his misconduct.16 See R1-35, App. B, Wilson Affidavit at 1. He further states that he was forced to sleep on a bare floor, which was both degrading and inhumane. Id. at 1. The magistrate judge ordered Hopkins to respond to Wilson's allegations. Hopkins explained that she placed Wilson in an isolation cell because he was inciting other inmates to disobey an order to lower the noise in their cellblock and that it was her professional opinion that he had to be removed to maintain security in the cellblock. See R1-39, Hopkins Affidavit at 1-2. She further avers that MCJ inmates who remain in isolation are given bedding and that Wilson was not required to sleep on the floor. Id. In a report describing the incident to Warden Hall, Hopkins states that Wilson was not calm when her shift terminated and that it was the responsibility of the next shift to provide bedding for inmates who remained in isolation after lock down and lights out. See R1-38, Exh. A. Even accepting 16 Wilson has not placed in the record the specifics of his alleged disciplinary isolation by Parks. Because Wilson bear[s] the responsibility of ensuring that the record is complete, and he has given us no reason to believe he was unable to do so, we are unable to address his allegations relating to Parks. United States v. Walker, 839 F.2d 1483, 1485 n.2 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Therefore, Parks is entitled to qualified immunity because we will not hold a government official personally liable for compensatory and punitive damages based on mere allegations. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149-50. 28 Wilson's account that he was not provided bedding in the isolation cell, the correctional officer on duty at lock down and lights out would be the individual who allegedly deprived Wilson of bedding and not Hopkins. Additionally, it is unclear from the record whether Wilson actually spent the night or several hours in the isolation cell. We also are mindful that our court has not found an inmate's sleeping on a table while in confinement, but not isolation, not to be violative of any constitutional rights. See Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1569. Significantly, Wilson was placed in disciplinary isolation to quell a disturbance that he was causing on the cellblock at night. [P]reserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the retained constitutional rights of both convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees. Bell, 441 U.S. at 546, 99 S.Ct. at 1878; see Hamm, 774 F.2d at 1573 (Legitimate restraints may stem from the state's need to manage the detention facility and maintain security.). Prison officials have wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal 29 order and discipline and to maintain institutional security. Bell, 441 U.S. at 547, 99 S.Ct. at 1878. Because courts are not in a position to evaluate urgent problems that occur in prison administration, we do not second-guess prison officials on matters that they are better equipped to handle under the exigencies of an internal disturbance. See id. at 531, 99 S.Ct. at 1870. Wilson's temporary placement in disciplinary isolation for the legitimate purpose of quieting him on the facts of this record was not unconstitutional even without bedding and did not violate any clearly established law at the relevant time. Accordingly, we conclude that Parks and Hopkins are entitled to qualified immunity concerning Wilson's placement in disciplinary isolation.17