Withrow v. Heaton ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40350
Summary Calendar
JON MICHAEL WITHROW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JASON HEATON, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:00-CV-627)
September 24, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Withrow, a prisoner, alleges that prison officials refused to
repair windows during winter despite extremely cold temperatures in
the prison. Withrow also claims that he was forced to walk 400 feet
to the shower room in his underwear every day despite the extreme
cold. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and as
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We
vacate and remand.
An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous
if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.1 We review the
dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous for abuse
of discretion.2 We review de novo the dismissal of an in forma
pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim.3 We must assume
that all of the plaintiff's factual allegations are true, and we
may uphold the dismissal only if it appears that no relief could be
granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with
the allegations.4
The magistrate judge abused her discretion by dismissing
Withrow’s complaint as frivolous. In Beck v. Lynaugh,5 this court
reversed the dismissal of a claim that exposure to the elements
during winter months because of missing window panes constituted
cruel and unusual punishment.6 Withrow’s complaint presents facts
that mirror the allegation in Beck.
In a case decided after Beck, the Supreme Court held that an
inmate must satisfy two requirements to demonstrate that a prison
1
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
2
Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999).
3
Clay v. Allen, 242 F.3d 679, 680 (5th Cir. 2001).
4
Id.
5
842 F.2d 759 (5th Cir. 1988).
6
Beck, 842 F.2d at 761.
official has violated the Eighth Amendment. First, the deprivation
must “result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities.” Second, the defendants must be “deliberate[ly]
indifferen[t] to inmate health or safety.”7
Broadly construed, Withrow’s allegations state a cause of
action under this standard. Prisoners have a right to protection
from extreme cold,8 and it is at least arguable that Withrow was
subjected to extreme cold without adequate protection. Withrow has
also sufficiently alleged that prison officials were indifferent to
the health and safety of inmates. Withrow claims that while
officers wore heavy winter coats, caps, and gloves and acquired
space heaters for their stations to cope with the cold, they forced
inmates to walk to the shower in their underwear. He alleges that
officers would routinely tear down the cardboard coverings used by
prisoners to keep out the cold wind, and that for one winter season
the heating system was never turned on. Withrow’s claims are not
“pure fantasy or based upon a legally inarguable proposition.”9
The magistrate judge also concluded that Withrow failed to
allege a physical injury, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
Withrow’s claim that exposure to extreme cold exacerbated his
arthritis is sufficient. Withrow need not allege that he was
7
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
8
Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 353 (5th Cir. 1999)
(quoting Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640, 642 (7th Cir. 1997)).
9
Eason, 14 F.3d at 10.
seriously harmed, but merely that there was an injury in fact.
Accordingly, the district court’s decision is VACATED and
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.