×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Tenth Circuit: Kansas Prisoner's Exercise, Newspaper Ban Claims Valid
In this case filed by a Kansas prisoner, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals held in an unpublished opinion that inadequate, outside exercise
time and a total ban on newspapers possibly violated the prisoner's
constitutional rights.
Mitchell Thomas was imprisoned in the Reno County (Kansas) Detention Center
(RCDC) from December 1992 through May 1994. While there, Thomas claimed he
was denied an hour of exercise per day outside his cell in violation of his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the lack of exercise
aggravated his existing medical problems. He also claimed that an absolute
ban on newspapers at the jail violated his rights under the First
Amendment. Thomas sued Reno County Sheriff Larry Leslie seeking $15,000 in
compensatory damages.
On cross motions for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas held that Thomas had failed to prove that the lack of
exercise exacerbated his health problems. However, the court also held that
the jail's absolute ban on newspapers violated his constitutional rights
and awarded him nominal damages of $1.00. Both parties appealed.
In reviewing the case de novo, the Tenth Circuit reversed in part and
affirmed in part, holding:
1) The district court erroneously relied on the sheriff's version of
events, which he detailed in two reports filed pursuant to Martinez v.
Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). Because the reports conflicted with
Thomas' version of events, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to
the sheriff on the inadequate recreation claim was improper.
2) The sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity since a prisoner's
right to newspapers was "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official
would understand that what he is doing violates the law."
3) The sheriff's total ban on newspapers was not rationally related to
legitimate penological interests. Moreover, prisoners' access to television
news programs, which had to be voted on and were not as in-depth as
newspapers, was not an adequate substitute for newspapers as the sheriff
claimed. See: Thomas v. Leslie, 176 F.3d 489 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished).
Appeals held in an unpublished opinion that inadequate, outside exercise
time and a total ban on newspapers possibly violated the prisoner's
constitutional rights.
Mitchell Thomas was imprisoned in the Reno County (Kansas) Detention Center
(RCDC) from December 1992 through May 1994. While there, Thomas claimed he
was denied an hour of exercise per day outside his cell in violation of his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the lack of exercise
aggravated his existing medical problems. He also claimed that an absolute
ban on newspapers at the jail violated his rights under the First
Amendment. Thomas sued Reno County Sheriff Larry Leslie seeking $15,000 in
compensatory damages.
On cross motions for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas held that Thomas had failed to prove that the lack of
exercise exacerbated his health problems. However, the court also held that
the jail's absolute ban on newspapers violated his constitutional rights
and awarded him nominal damages of $1.00. Both parties appealed.
In reviewing the case de novo, the Tenth Circuit reversed in part and
affirmed in part, holding:
1) The district court erroneously relied on the sheriff's version of
events, which he detailed in two reports filed pursuant to Martinez v.
Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). Because the reports conflicted with
Thomas' version of events, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to
the sheriff on the inadequate recreation claim was improper.
2) The sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity since a prisoner's
right to newspapers was "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official
would understand that what he is doing violates the law."
3) The sheriff's total ban on newspapers was not rationally related to
legitimate penological interests. Moreover, prisoners' access to television
news programs, which had to be voted on and were not as in-depth as
newspapers, was not an adequate substitute for newspapers as the sheriff
claimed. See: Thomas v. Leslie, 176 F.3d 489 (10th Cir. 1999) (unpublished).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Thomas v. Leslie
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 176 F.3d 489 (10th Cir. 1999). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 1 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
[U] Thomas v. Leslie, 176 F.3d 489 (10th Cir. 04/21/1999)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
[2] Nos. 97-3346 & 97-3361
[3] 176 F.3d 489, 1999
[4] April 21, 1999
[5] MITCHELL WAYNE THOMAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LARRY LESLIE, RENO COUNTY SHERIFF, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT.
[6] (D.C. No. 95-CV-3066-JTM) (D. Kan.)
[7] Before Porfilio, Kelly, and Henry, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Henry, Circuit Judge
[9] ORDER AND JUDGMENT *fn1
[10] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
[11] This appeal (No. 97-3346) and cross appeal (No. 97-3361) are taken from decisions granting summary judgment to Sheriff Leslie in No. 97-3346 and to Mr. Thomas in No. 97-3361. They arise from an action filed by Mr. Thomas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he claimed his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Reno County Detention Center (RCDC) from December of 1992 through May of 1994. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part and reverse in part.
[12] Mr. Thomas raised three claims in his verified complaint. See Thomas App. at 1-6. Judgment on the first claim, alleged denial of access to the courts, has not been appealed, nor has the denial of declaratory and injunctive relief. For his second claim, Mr. Thomas alleged that the absolute ban on newspapers at the jail violated his First Amendment rights. In his third claim, Mr. Thomas contended that he was denied an hour of exercise per day outside his cell in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Mr. Thomas sought $15,000 in compensatory damages. See id. at 5. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with supporting documentation and affidavits. Sheriff Leslie also filed a Martinez *fn2 report and a supplemental report.
[13] Background
[14] Mr. Thomas was incarcerated at the RCDC, after being extradited from a facility in Texas, pending Disposition of state charges against him in Kansas. During his stay at the RCDC, he was briefly transferred on several occasions to a mental health center, the state hospital, and the county jail. Following his conviction in Kansas, he was transferred back to Texas.
[15] No. 97-3346
[16] In his complaint, Mr. Thomas claimed the failure to provide him with "one hour of recreation outside [his] cell per day violated his constitutional rights under the 8th & 14th Amendments." Thomas App. at 4. In subsequent pleadings, he alleged that because he was under a doctor's care for stomach pains and depression, "[i]t may certainly be argued that the lack of exercise contributed greatly to [plaintiff's] medical problems . . . ." R. Doc. 24, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, at 13.
[17] In his initial Memorandum and Order, the district court found that there were sometimes delays of over a week between inmate visits to the exercise area in the basement of RCDC, see Thomas App. at 48, that Mr. Thomas had access to the day room *fn3 adjoining his cell for at least seventeen hours daily and was permitted to exercise there, and that RCDC intended to provide each inmate with an opportunity for out-of-cell exercise at least weekly, but was not always able to achieve the goal. See id. at 49. The court further found that Mr. Thomas filed a grievance with Sheriff Leslie, who admitted telling Mr. Thomas that the exercise area was not available on a daily basis. See id. at 48.
[18] The court held that under Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-303 (1991), the Supreme Court noted that an Eighth Amendment claim has two components--a subjective component (did jail officials act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., deliberate indifference?) and an objective one (was the deprivation serious?). See Thomas App. at 62; see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) ("In prison-conditions cases that [sufficiently culpable] state of mind is one of `deliberate indifference' to inmate health or safety") (further citations omitted). The court ruled that because the right to a minimal amount of out-of-cell exercise was clearly established at the time of Mr. Thomas's incarceration, the subjective component requiring deliberate indifference had been satisfied. See id. at 62-63. We assume that the district court recognized that the subjective component of deliberate indifference would be satisfied by a showing that Sheriff Leslie was aware of an exercise requirement, given the policy, and knowingly failed to implement it. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 1994). "[T]his is not a case where defendants claim that they were unaware of either the circumstances resulting in the alleged deprivation or the likelihood that the deprivation would occur." Id.
[19] As to the objective component, the court noted this court's decision in Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597, 599 (10th Cir. 1994), as recognizing that the "failure to provide inmates confined for more than a short period of time with the opportunity for at least five hours a week of exercise outside the cell raises serious constitutional questions." See Thomas App. at 63.
[20] Because of the parties' disputes as to the real conditions at the jail (e.g., crowded day rooms, Thomas's length of confinement, unsanitary nature of day room as an exercise area), and any damages Mr. Thomas may have incurred to his physical or mental health, the court found that issues of fact existed as to the conditions of Mr. Thomas's confinement with regard to adequate opportunity for exercise. The court then ordered a supplemental Martinez report, directing Sheriff Leslie to include Mr. Thomas's medical records and to "fully address the factors announced in Housley which a district court is to consider when evaluating a claim that a prisoner was denied an adequate opportunity for out-of-cell exercise." See id. at 65-66.
[21] Sheriff Leslie filed a supplemental Martinez report, which included an affidavit of the captain of the RCDC, Mr. Thomas's medical records, some of the records (gym logs) of those inmates who had signed up to attend the exercise area, a description of the exercise area and its equipment, a description of the jail (cell and day room facilities), the inmate rule book, information on the average stay of inmates at the RCDC, a gym request slip indicating Mr. Thomas's refusal to attend an exercise session, and other miscellaneous documents. See R. Doc. 44 and Thomas App. at 67-106. Mr. Thomas filed a lengthy and detailed response specifically disputing both factual statements and Conclusions presented in the Supplemental Martinez report. See Thomas App. at 107-139.
[22] In his second Memorandum and Order, the district court found that the RCDC inmates were given the opportunity for out-of-cell exercise once a week, that the goal was to provide each inmate with an hour of exercise a week, but that the sessions usually lasted only twenty to forty minutes, that the sessions were frequently canceled, and that for approximately six months toward the end of Mr. Thomas's incarceration no opportunity for out-of-cell exercise was provided because of an escape from the exercise room. See id. at 141.
[23] The court further found that an inmate wishing to participate in attending the exercise area was required to submit a request form before 7:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for exercise and that Mr. Thomas had submitted only one such request to participate in the exercise sessions (and had refused to go when the time came). The court determined that Mr. Thomas admitted "he did not take advantage of the out-of-cell opportunities that were made available to him." See id. at 141-142. The court also ruled that the exercise sessions lasted at least twenty minutes, and that Mr. Thomas "certainly could have received some benefit from participating on a weekly basis." See id. at 142. In granting summary judgment to Sheriff Leslie, the court concluded that because Mr. Thomas had refused to participate in the exercise opportunities made available to him, Mr. Thomas could not "show that his mental or physical health deteriorated because [Sheriff] Leslie failed to provide additional opportunities for out-of-cell recreation." See id. at 143.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
[2] Nos. 97-3346 & 97-3361
[3] 176 F.3d 489, 1999
[4] April 21, 1999
[5] MITCHELL WAYNE THOMAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LARRY LESLIE, RENO COUNTY SHERIFF, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT.
[6] (D.C. No. 95-CV-3066-JTM) (D. Kan.)
[7] Before Porfilio, Kelly, and Henry, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert H. Henry, Circuit Judge
[9] ORDER AND JUDGMENT *fn1
[10] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
[11] This appeal (No. 97-3346) and cross appeal (No. 97-3361) are taken from decisions granting summary judgment to Sheriff Leslie in No. 97-3346 and to Mr. Thomas in No. 97-3361. They arise from an action filed by Mr. Thomas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he claimed his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Reno County Detention Center (RCDC) from December of 1992 through May of 1994. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part and reverse in part.
[12] Mr. Thomas raised three claims in his verified complaint. See Thomas App. at 1-6. Judgment on the first claim, alleged denial of access to the courts, has not been appealed, nor has the denial of declaratory and injunctive relief. For his second claim, Mr. Thomas alleged that the absolute ban on newspapers at the jail violated his First Amendment rights. In his third claim, Mr. Thomas contended that he was denied an hour of exercise per day outside his cell in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Mr. Thomas sought $15,000 in compensatory damages. See id. at 5. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with supporting documentation and affidavits. Sheriff Leslie also filed a Martinez *fn2 report and a supplemental report.
[13] Background
[14] Mr. Thomas was incarcerated at the RCDC, after being extradited from a facility in Texas, pending Disposition of state charges against him in Kansas. During his stay at the RCDC, he was briefly transferred on several occasions to a mental health center, the state hospital, and the county jail. Following his conviction in Kansas, he was transferred back to Texas.
[15] No. 97-3346
[16] In his complaint, Mr. Thomas claimed the failure to provide him with "one hour of recreation outside [his] cell per day violated his constitutional rights under the 8th & 14th Amendments." Thomas App. at 4. In subsequent pleadings, he alleged that because he was under a doctor's care for stomach pains and depression, "[i]t may certainly be argued that the lack of exercise contributed greatly to [plaintiff's] medical problems . . . ." R. Doc. 24, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, at 13.
[17] In his initial Memorandum and Order, the district court found that there were sometimes delays of over a week between inmate visits to the exercise area in the basement of RCDC, see Thomas App. at 48, that Mr. Thomas had access to the day room *fn3 adjoining his cell for at least seventeen hours daily and was permitted to exercise there, and that RCDC intended to provide each inmate with an opportunity for out-of-cell exercise at least weekly, but was not always able to achieve the goal. See id. at 49. The court further found that Mr. Thomas filed a grievance with Sheriff Leslie, who admitted telling Mr. Thomas that the exercise area was not available on a daily basis. See id. at 48.
[18] The court held that under Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-303 (1991), the Supreme Court noted that an Eighth Amendment claim has two components--a subjective component (did jail officials act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., deliberate indifference?) and an objective one (was the deprivation serious?). See Thomas App. at 62; see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) ("In prison-conditions cases that [sufficiently culpable] state of mind is one of `deliberate indifference' to inmate health or safety") (further citations omitted). The court ruled that because the right to a minimal amount of out-of-cell exercise was clearly established at the time of Mr. Thomas's incarceration, the subjective component requiring deliberate indifference had been satisfied. See id. at 62-63. We assume that the district court recognized that the subjective component of deliberate indifference would be satisfied by a showing that Sheriff Leslie was aware of an exercise requirement, given the policy, and knowingly failed to implement it. See Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 1994). "[T]his is not a case where defendants claim that they were unaware of either the circumstances resulting in the alleged deprivation or the likelihood that the deprivation would occur." Id.
[19] As to the objective component, the court noted this court's decision in Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597, 599 (10th Cir. 1994), as recognizing that the "failure to provide inmates confined for more than a short period of time with the opportunity for at least five hours a week of exercise outside the cell raises serious constitutional questions." See Thomas App. at 63.
[20] Because of the parties' disputes as to the real conditions at the jail (e.g., crowded day rooms, Thomas's length of confinement, unsanitary nature of day room as an exercise area), and any damages Mr. Thomas may have incurred to his physical or mental health, the court found that issues of fact existed as to the conditions of Mr. Thomas's confinement with regard to adequate opportunity for exercise. The court then ordered a supplemental Martinez report, directing Sheriff Leslie to include Mr. Thomas's medical records and to "fully address the factors announced in Housley which a district court is to consider when evaluating a claim that a prisoner was denied an adequate opportunity for out-of-cell exercise." See id. at 65-66.
[21] Sheriff Leslie filed a supplemental Martinez report, which included an affidavit of the captain of the RCDC, Mr. Thomas's medical records, some of the records (gym logs) of those inmates who had signed up to attend the exercise area, a description of the exercise area and its equipment, a description of the jail (cell and day room facilities), the inmate rule book, information on the average stay of inmates at the RCDC, a gym request slip indicating Mr. Thomas's refusal to attend an exercise session, and other miscellaneous documents. See R. Doc. 44 and Thomas App. at 67-106. Mr. Thomas filed a lengthy and detailed response specifically disputing both factual statements and Conclusions presented in the Supplemental Martinez report. See Thomas App. at 107-139.
[22] In his second Memorandum and Order, the district court found that the RCDC inmates were given the opportunity for out-of-cell exercise once a week, that the goal was to provide each inmate with an hour of exercise a week, but that the sessions usually lasted only twenty to forty minutes, that the sessions were frequently canceled, and that for approximately six months toward the end of Mr. Thomas's incarceration no opportunity for out-of-cell exercise was provided because of an escape from the exercise room. See id. at 141.
[23] The court further found that an inmate wishing to participate in attending the exercise area was required to submit a request form before 7:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for exercise and that Mr. Thomas had submitted only one such request to participate in the exercise sessions (and had refused to go when the time came). The court determined that Mr. Thomas admitted "he did not take advantage of the out-of-cell opportunities that were made available to him." See id. at 141-142. The court also ruled that the exercise sessions lasted at least twenty minutes, and that Mr. Thomas "certainly could have received some benefit from participating on a weekly basis." See id. at 142. In granting summary judgment to Sheriff Leslie, the court concluded that because Mr. Thomas had refused to participate in the exercise opportunities made available to him, Mr. Thomas could not "show that his mental or physical health deteriorated because [Sheriff] Leslie failed to provide additional opportunities for out-of-cell recreation." See id. at 143.