Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04138/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04138-0/pdf.json

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

---

,, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OLIVER BENJAMIN GERRISH, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

F°t 8 l 1 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-4138 

TOM T. HOUSE, ALBERT WALLES, OFFICER 

JACQUARDT, OFFICER SHIRLE, OFFICER 

CARTER, OFFICER OLIN, OFFICER LOWELL 

CLARK, GERALD COOK, GARY DELAND, 

DEAN LANEY, OFFICER TRUJILLO, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. 88-C-739G) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Oliver Gerrish, a prose prisoner, brought this action under 

42 u.s.c. § 1983 (1988) seeking damages resulting from alleged 

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4138 Document: 010110099896 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 1 
Gerrish asserts that his constitutional rights were violated when 

he was not given any underwear and was forced to wear the same 

prison jumpsuit without a clean spare of the correct size for 

approximately eight months. The district court referred the case 

to a magistrate, who issued a report and recommended that 

defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. Gerrish 

objected to the report. Upon de novo review, the district court 

concluded that Gerrish had failed to present evidence that 

defendants' conduct was sufficiently obdurate and wanton to rise 

to cruel and unusual punishment. The court also rejected 

Gerrish's claim that he had not been allowed adequate discovery. 

We affirm. 

As the district court recognized, lack of adequate clothing 

can provide the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim. See Ramos v. 

Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 566 n.8 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 

U.S. 1041 (1981); see also Maxwell v. Mason, 668 F.2d 361, 365 

(8th Cir. 1981); Montana v. Commissioners Court, 659 F.2d 19, 23 

(5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1026 (1982). We agree 

with the district court that "[i]t is obduracy and wantonness, not 

inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct 

prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause." Whitley 

v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Under some circumstances, 

the lack of underwear and the failure to provide a clean change of 

clothes for the period of time at issue here might well rise to 

the level of a constitutional deprivation. While we view the 

issue as a close one, we conclude that the record, viewed most 

favorably to Gerrish, lacks evidence of the type of conduct 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4138 Document: 010110099896 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 2 
required to support a constitutional claim. Although defendants 

here were certainly dilatory in providing Gerrish adequate clean 

clothing in a usable size, their conduct does not rise to the 

degree of willfulness and wantonness necessary to establish an 

Eighth Amendment violation. 

We have carefully examined the record and, in view of our 

above conclusion and the nature of Gerrish's claims with respect 

to lack of discovery, we conclude that those claims provide no 

ground for reversal. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate sh~ll issue forthwith . 

3 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-4138 Document: 010110099896 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 3