Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-06196/USCOURTS-ca10-93-06196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 1~ I L E L) U:-Jted States Coqrt of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIM R. HOUSLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

C. D. DODSON; LARRY WILLIAMS; 

ED COVEY; RICK WEBB; J. M. KELLY; 

and OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

NOV Z 9 1994 

No. 93-6196 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. CIV-92-427-B) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Jim R. Housley, Pro Se, Stringtown, Oklahoma; David J. Richman and 

Martin D. Beier, Coghill & Goodspeed, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Jack L. Atkinson, Assistant District Attorney, and Dennis A. 

Smith, Assistant District Attorney, Arapaho, Oklahoma, for 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Before KELLY, McKAY, and REAVLEY,* Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

* Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Housley appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights 

claim, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) for failure to state a 

claim, stemming from his alleged unconstitutional treatment in the 

Custer County Jail. The sufficiency of a complaint is a question 

of law which we review de novo. Ayala v. Joy Mfg. Co., 877 F.2d 

846 (lOth Cir. 1989). "We will uphold a dismissal only when it 

appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 

the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Jacobs. 

Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 

(lOth Cir. 1991) (citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 

73 (1984)). For purposes of making this determination, we accept 

the allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Williams v. Meese, 926 

F.2d 994, 997 (lOth Cir. 1991). 

Mr. Housley has made two basic claims which would entitle him 

to relief. First, he claims he was denied all access to any legal 

resources during his six-month confinement. Mr. Housley also 

claims that he was allowed only thirty minutes of out-of-cell 

exercise during a three-month period.l Taking these allegations 

1 In his complaint to the district court, Mr. Housley listed 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 2 
as true, Mr. Housley has stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, and this case was dismissed prematurely. 

"The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts 

requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation 

and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with 

adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained 

in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). This 

court has held that the constitutional right recognized in Bounds 

"to adequate, effective and meaningful access to the courts" 

extends to county jails. Love v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908, 912 

(lOth Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 814 (1986). See Straub 

v. Monge, 815 F.2d 1467, 1469-70 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 

484 U.S. 946 (1988). Mr. Housley has claimed that he had neither 

access to legal materials nor to counsel. Thus, further 

proceedings are required to determine the validity of this claim. 

See Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (lOth Cir. 1991) (where prisoner 

alleges total denial of access to legal resources, dismissal is 

inappropriate). See also Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383 (lOth 

Cir. 1992) (denial of access to legal material and law library 

forms basis of cognizable claim) . We recognize that there may be 

cases where a prisoner is denied access for such a short time that 

several other violations of his personal rights that he asserted 

arose to cruel and unusual punishment: his food was inadequate, 

he was refused medical attention, he had no way to summon a jailor 

to his cell, the jailers would not certify the amount in his 

prison account, his stamps and pencils were confiscated, he was 

not allowed pencils over two inches long, and he was denied 

trustee status. As Mr. Housley no longer urges these grounds on 

appeal, we do not address the merits of these claims. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 3 
prejudice would have to be shown, otherwise dismissal would be 

appropriate.2 However, this alleged six-month denial of all 

access is not so de minimis as to require an exception to the 

general rule. "A prisoners' [sic] constitutional right of access 

to legal resources is not conditioned on a showing of need." 

Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d at 950 (citing cases). Furthermore, we 

find that the right of meaningful access to the courts was clearly 

established at the time of Mr. Housley's incarceration. 

Mr. Housley has also stated a claim by alleging that he 

received only thirty minutes of out-of-cell exercise in three 

months. Although we have never expressly held that prisoners have 

a constitutional right to exercise, there can be no doubt that 

total denial of exercise for an extended period of time would 

constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth 

Amendment. Mitchell v. Rice, 954 F. 2d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 1992). 

As this court has stated: 

2 In Love v. Summit County, supra at 914, we recognized the 

possibility that detention may be so brief that a prisoner would 

not have time to prepare and file a petition to the courts even if 

library facilities were accessible. There we said: 

Since plaintiff was incarcerated in the Summit County 

Jail for 7 months and the magistrate found him to be a 

long term detainee, this manifestly is not a case in 

which ·"brevity of confinement does not permit sufficient 

time for prisoners to petition the courts." 

In support of this aside, we quoted from Cruz v. Hauck, 515 

F.2d 322, 333 (5th Cir. 1975). That court used the example of "an 

inmate held in jail for only two or three.days on the way to a 

state prison [who] reasonably may await transfer before filing a 

habeas petition." Id. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 4 
• 

There is substantial agreement among the cases in this 

area that some form of regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the psychological and physical well 

being of inmates, and some courts have held a denial of 

fresh air and exercise to be cruel and unusual punishment under certain circumstances. 

Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (lOth Cir. 1987) (per 

curiam), citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1152 (5th Cir. 

1982), and Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979). 

In Bailey, we found that even a convicted murderer who had 

murdered another inmate and represented a major security risk was 

entitled to outdoor exercise. The prisoner was receiving one hour 

per week of outdoor exercise. Although we found "this amount of 

exposure to exercise and fresh air" to be "restrictive," we did 

not consider it cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances. 828 F.2d at 653. In this case, there is no evidence 

that Mr. Housley was a particularly high security risk, yet he 

claims he received far less than the minimal one hour per week 

that Mr. Bailey was allowed. As was stated in Davenport v. 

DeRobertis, "a failure to provide inmates (confined for more than 

a very short period ... ) with the opportunity for at least five 

hours a week of exercise outside the cell raises serious constitutional questions." 844 F.2d 1310, 1315 (7th Cir. 1988) (citing 

cases) . Al·though no precise standards have been set forth 

delineating what constitutes constitutionally sufficient opportunities for exercise, the right to some exercise was clearly 

established at the time of Mr. Housley's confinement. See 

Mitchell v. Rice, 954 F.2d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 1992) ("[A] total or 

near-total deprivation of exercise or recreational opportunity, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 5 
without penological justification, violates Eighth Amendment 

guarantees."), gyoting Patterson v. Mintzes, 717 F.2d 284, 289 

{6th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, this claim was prematurely dismissed. We recognize, of course, that what constitutes adequate 

exercise will depend on the circumstances of each case, including 

the physical characteristics of the cell and jail and the average 

length of stay of the inmates. 

The district court also dismissed all of the numerous 

defendants that Mr. Housley named. The Oklahoma Health Department 

was properly dismissed because Mr. Housley has failed to plead the 

individual actions required to state a claim against any person in 

the Oklahoma Health Department. Similarly, Mr. Housley has failed 

to demonstrate any personal participation by the County Commissioners in the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. 

An official is not individually liable unless an affirmative link 

exists between that official's conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1527-28 

{lOth Cir. 1988); see generally Hafer v. Melo, 112 S. Ct. 358 

{1991). Mr. Housley has failed to state a claim for relief 

against these two parties. 

However, Sheriff Williams and Mr. Dodson, the jailer, were 

dismissed prematurely. The district court found that these 

defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they were 

performing discretionary functions. Government officials are not 

personally liable for their conduct unless they.violate clearly 

-6-

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 6 
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known. Medina v. City & County of 

Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1497 (lOth Cir. 1992). Because we have 

found that the rights of access to the courts and to some minimal 

amount of exercise were clearly established constitutional rights 

at the time of Mr. Housley's incarceration, we cannot sustain the 

finding of qualified immunity for these two defendants. Mitchell 

v. Rice, 954 F.2d 187, 191 (4th Cir. 1992) ("If preexisting law 

sufficiently established the contours of the Eighth Amendment 

cruel and unusual punishment to include exercise deprivations, 

then prison officials cannot shelter themselves from liability."). 

A reasonable sheriff and jailer must remain apprised of major 

constitutional developments concerning inmates' rights. 

The grant of the motion to dismiss by Defendants Covey, Webb, 

and Kelly is affirmed. The grant of the motion to dismiss by 

Defendant Oklahoma Department of Health is affirmed. The grant of 

the motion to dismiss by Defendants Williams and Dodson is 

reversed. This case is remanded to the district court for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court 

shall allow Appellant to amend his complaint to specify more 

clearly the relief sought. As this case raises important constitutional questions, the district court should consider appointment 

of counsel. 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further 

proceedings. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 93-6196 Document: 01019311167 Date Filed: 11/29/1994 Page: 7