Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02801/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02801-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

.· .. . . 

FILED 

Uoited States O>urc of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP l ~ 1989 

RAYMONDE. HORTON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

DARRELL WERGER; DON MURPHY; ) 

CHRIS ESQUIBEL; GEORGE BALDRIDGE; ) 

LARRY MOORE; LOWELL FITCH; RODNEY ) 

RUTT; 3 JOHN DOES; COUNTY OF GOSHEN, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2801 

(D.C. No. M88-087) 

(D . Wyoming) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined un•nimously 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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Although plaintiff Raymond E. Horton· has counsel on appeal, 

the suit involved here was commenced prose against prison 

officials under 42 U.S.C. S 1983. The district court dismissed 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2801 Document: 01019973402 Date Filed: 09/01/1989 Page: 1 
' 

•·• . •. •• • ••• :. -· • • ~· :· • • . _,· • •. ' .; .• •J. .. • - ~ ·, ·~ 

the complaint with prejudice sua sponte without requiring 

defendants to answer. The dismissal was apparently under 28 

u.s.c. S 1915(d) as a frivolous complaint, for the stated reason 

that the "broad and conclusory 

plaintiff's complaint which 

allegations as set out in 

are 

insufficient to state a claim for 

action." IR. tab 3, at 3. 

without factual support, are 

relief in a civil rights 

This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's recent 

decision, Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989), which held 

that the standard for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

should not be applied in § 1915(d) dismissals. Aithough the 

pleading may be lacking in specificity, it does not contain wholly 

inarguable legal conclusions or fanciful factual allegations which 

the Supreme Court considered necessary for§ 1915(d) dismissals 

without requiring responsive pleadings or further proceedings in 

the district court. 

Here, plaintiff attempts to make an allegation of "deliberate 

indifference" to his medical needs sufficient to meet the Estelle 

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), standard. He alleges that he had a 

severe medical problem and, although ultimately he was able to see 

a doctor, he was denied initial medical attention; then, when the 

doctor he saw ordered that he be seen by a specialist, the 

defendants refused to follow that order. These facts may be 

insufficient, without more, to state a claim for relief. But they 

are not fanciful, and if supplemented they may support a valid 

constitutional claim. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2801 Document: 01019973402 Date Filed: 09/01/1989 Page: 2 
• 

' Plaintiff alleges that defendants permitted him no outdoor 

recreation during his six months of incarceration. While we have 

not made a determination that a denial of outdoor exercise is an 

automatic violation of the Eighth Amendment, we have recognized 

that it may be violative in particular circumstances. See Bailey 

v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir. 1987). 

We believe the allegations concerning unhealthy and 

unsanitary living conditions in the jail are sufficient to survive 

dismissal on the pleadings. Cf. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th 

Cir. 1980) (evidence with regard to prison shelter and sanitation, 

food, personal safety, and health care supported finding of Eighth 

Amendment violation), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Battle 

v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977) (evidence of prison 

overcrowding supported finding of Eighth Amendment violation). 

Finally, the allegation that "[i]n retaliaiion for the 

actions of one prisoner, all prisoners were punished en masse, 

i.e., together," IR. tab 1, at 3(c), while wholly lacking in 

specificity and, no doubt, insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss absent amendment and supplementation, seems to 

be precisely the sort of allegation contemplated by Neitzke as not 

subject to dismissal under S 1915(d). 

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent 

herewith. The district court should order defendants to respond 

to the complaint and should give plaintiff an opportunity to amend 

for specificity if requested. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2801 Document: 01019973402 Date Filed: 09/01/1989 Page: 3