×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Exposure to Cold Weather States Claim
Ronald Chandler is a Missouri state prisoner. He filed suit claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by providing a dining room too small to accommodate all the prisoners in his housing unit at once; poorly supervising the noisy and chaotic dining room; not providing enough salt and pepper shakers or cereal bowls to adequately serve all prisoners; failing to ensure that the trays, pitchers and eating utensils were properly cleaned; and failing to provide enough juice and tea. He also claimed he was often forced to wait outside in the rain or freezing cold without adequate protective clothing while other prisoners finished their meals.
The district court dismissed the entire case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court of appeals for the eighth circuit, in a brief opinion, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The appeals court upheld dismissal of Chandler's claims concerning the dining hall because he did not claim or allege he was denied a reasonably adequate diet and failed to allege any facts showing he was denied the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claim of being forced to stand outside in the cold and rain without adequate protective clothing. "We have previously held that needlessly subjecting inmates to freezing weather without adequate protective clothing could amount to cruel and unusual punishment." While the facts were slim, they're sufficient to preclude a § 1915(d) dismissal. See: Chandler v. Moore , 2 F.3d 847 (8 Cir. 1993).
The district court dismissed the entire case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court of appeals for the eighth circuit, in a brief opinion, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The appeals court upheld dismissal of Chandler's claims concerning the dining hall because he did not claim or allege he was denied a reasonably adequate diet and failed to allege any facts showing he was denied the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities."
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claim of being forced to stand outside in the cold and rain without adequate protective clothing. "We have previously held that needlessly subjecting inmates to freezing weather without adequate protective clothing could amount to cruel and unusual punishment." While the facts were slim, they're sufficient to preclude a § 1915(d) dismissal. See: Chandler v. Moore , 2 F.3d 847 (8 Cir. 1993).
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
Chandler v. Moore
| Year | 1993 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 1993) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Chandler v. Moore, 2 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 09/01/1993)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 93-2764
[3] 1993, 2 F.3d 847
[4] filed: September 1, 1993.
[5] RONALD D. CHANDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
DICK D. MOORE; JAMES D. PURKETT; JERRY FINCH, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. District No. 4:93 CV 311 SNL. Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, District Judge.
[7] COUNSEL
[8] Appellant proceeded pro se.
[9] Counsel who represented appellee was the Missouri Attorney General's Office.
[10] Before Fagg, Magill, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[11] Author: Per Curiam
[12] Per Curiam.
[13] Ronald D. Chandler, a Missouri prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Dick Moore, James Purkett, and Jerry Finch. We affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further consideration.
[14] Chandler alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by providing a dining room too small to accommodate all the inmates of his housing unit at one time; by poorly supervising the noisy and chaotic dining room; by failing to provide enough salt and pepper shakers and cereal bowls to adequately serve all of the inmates; by failing to assure that the trays, utensils, and pitchers used by the inmates were properly cleaned; and by failing to always provide enough juice and tea. Chandler also alleged that he was often forced to wait outside in the rain or freezing cold without adequate protective clothing while other prisoners finished their meals. The district court dismissed the entire complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and Chandler appeals.
[15] We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint under section 1915(d) for an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). A court may dismiss a claim as frivolous only if "the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible," id. at 1733, or the claim is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989).
[16] We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Chandler's claims concerning the conditions of the dining room or the provisions provided therein. Chandler did not claim that he was denied a reasonably adequate diet and he failed to allege any facts to show that he was denied the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." See Hudson v. McMillian, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 112 S. Ct. 995, 1000 (1992).
[17] We conclude, however, that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing as frivolous Chandler's claim that he was forced to stand outside in the rain and cold without adequate protective clothing. We have previously held that needlessly subjecting inmates to freezing weather without adequate protective clothing could amount to cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Gordon v. Faber, 973 F.2d 686, 687 (8th Cir. 1992). While the facts supporting this claim in Chandler's complaint are sketchy, pro se complaints are entitled to a liberal construction, and we conclude that these allegations were sufficient to preclude section 1915(d) dismissal.
[18] Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 93-2764
[3] 1993, 2 F.3d 847
[4] filed: September 1, 1993.
[5] RONALD D. CHANDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
DICK D. MOORE; JAMES D. PURKETT; JERRY FINCH, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. District No. 4:93 CV 311 SNL. Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, District Judge.
[7] COUNSEL
[8] Appellant proceeded pro se.
[9] Counsel who represented appellee was the Missouri Attorney General's Office.
[10] Before Fagg, Magill, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[11] Author: Per Curiam
[12] Per Curiam.
[13] Ronald D. Chandler, a Missouri prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Dick Moore, James Purkett, and Jerry Finch. We affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further consideration.
[14] Chandler alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by providing a dining room too small to accommodate all the inmates of his housing unit at one time; by poorly supervising the noisy and chaotic dining room; by failing to provide enough salt and pepper shakers and cereal bowls to adequately serve all of the inmates; by failing to assure that the trays, utensils, and pitchers used by the inmates were properly cleaned; and by failing to always provide enough juice and tea. Chandler also alleged that he was often forced to wait outside in the rain or freezing cold without adequate protective clothing while other prisoners finished their meals. The district court dismissed the entire complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and Chandler appeals.
[15] We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint under section 1915(d) for an abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). A court may dismiss a claim as frivolous only if "the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible," id. at 1733, or the claim is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory," Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338, 109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989).
[16] We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Chandler's claims concerning the conditions of the dining room or the provisions provided therein. Chandler did not claim that he was denied a reasonably adequate diet and he failed to allege any facts to show that he was denied the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." See Hudson v. McMillian, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 112 S. Ct. 995, 1000 (1992).
[17] We conclude, however, that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing as frivolous Chandler's claim that he was forced to stand outside in the rain and cold without adequate protective clothing. We have previously held that needlessly subjecting inmates to freezing weather without adequate protective clothing could amount to cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Gordon v. Faber, 973 F.2d 686, 687 (8th Cir. 1992). While the facts supporting this claim in Chandler's complaint are sketchy, pro se complaints are entitled to a liberal construction, and we conclude that these allegations were sufficient to preclude section 1915(d) dismissal.
[18] Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.