O’Brien v Moriarty
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Court held cell confinement did not violate the 8th Amendment but emphasized that solitary confinement, if imposed arbitrarily or for too long, may become unconstitutional, while deferring to prison officials’ security judgments.

1974 | Federal Juristiction

O’Brien v Moriarty

Keywords cell confinement; 8th Amendment; solitary confinement; prison officials; cruel and unusual punishment; prisoners' rights
Open Case as PDF

Summary

A court found that keeping a person in a cell did not break the Eighth Amendment. However, the court also said that solitary confinement could be unconstitutional if it was used unfairly or for too long. The court chose to trust the decisions made by prison officials regarding security.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A court found that keeping a person in a cell did not break the Eighth Amendment. However, the court also stressed that solitary confinement could be unconstitutional if it was done without good reason or for too long. The court also respected the decisions made by prison staff regarding security.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The court determined that placing an inmate in a confinement cell was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, the court also pointed out that solitary confinement could become unconstitutional if it was applied unfairly or for an excessive period. The court acknowledged the need for prison officials to make decisions based on security concerns.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The court decided that keeping a person in a cell alone was not against the 8th Amendment. However, the court also pointed out that if a person is kept alone for too long or for no good reason, it could be against the law. The court generally allowed prison leaders to make choices about safety.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

O’Brien v. Moriarty, 489 F.2d 941 (1st Cir. 1974)

Highlights