Langford v. Grady County Detention Center (670 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 2009)

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 2009-11-17

Citations

Full opinion text

ORDER

STEPHEN P. FRIOT, District Judge.

Plaintiff Norman Joe Langford, a state prisoner appearing pro se whose pleadings are liberally construed, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his federal constitutional rights.

On September 21, 2009, Magistrate Judge Valerie K Couch issued her Supplemental Report and Recommendation (the Report). The Report recommends that defendant Shane Wyatt’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part; that the motion for summary judgment of defendants Bill Daughtery and Larry McGill be granted in part and denied in part; that defendants Rieran McMullen and Jack Porter’s motion to dismiss be denied; that defendants Chris Angel and John Mosley’s motion to dismiss, construed as a motion for summary judgment, be granted; that defendant Grady County Detention Center’s motion to dismiss be granted; and that plaintiffs motion to compel discovery be denied.

Defendants Daughtery, McGill, McMullen and Porter have objected to the recommendations contained in the Report. Plaintiff has responded to the defendants’ objections to the Report.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1), the court has reviewed all objected to matters de novo. Having concluded that review, and after careful consideration of plaintiffs objections, the record, and the relevant authorities, the court finds that it agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and that no purpose would be served by stating any further analysis here.

Accordingly, the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Couch (doc. no. 179) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and AFFIRMED in its entirety. Consistent with that Report, the following rulings are hereby adopted by the court.

Summary of Rulings

Summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is entered in favor of defendants McGill and Daughtery as to the individual capacity claim raised in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on plaintiff being fed sack lunches for a three-day period from November 17 through November 19, 2006. Summary judgment is denied as to all other individual capacity claims brought against defendants McGill and Daughtery in Count I. In addition, summary judgment is denied as to all individual capacity claims brought against defendants McGill and Daughtery in Counts II and III of the Second Amended Complaint. Further, summary judgment is denied as to plaintiffs official capacity claims brought against these defendants.

Summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity is entered in favor of defendant Wyatt with respect to all individual capacity claims raised in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint and the claim raised in Count III of the Second Amended Complaint related to use of the restraint chair following plaintiffs December 2007 suicide attempt. Summary judgment is denied as to all other individual capacity claims brought against defendant Wyatt. In addition, summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiffs official capacity claims brought against defendant Wyatt.

The Motion to Dismiss of defendants McMullen and Porter is denied. Plaintiff has brought only official capacity claims against these defendants. Plaintiffs official capacity claims against these defendants should proceed.

The Motion to Dismiss of defendants Angel and Mosley, construed as a motion for summary judgment, is granted and judgment as a matter of law is entered in favor of these defendants.

The Motion to Dismiss of defendant Grady County Detention Center, is granted and the Detention Center is dismissed as a defendant in this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery is denied at this time.

Rulings

Accordingly, as set out in more particularity above:

(1) the Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Shane Wyatt (doc. no. 87) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

(2) the Motion for Summary Judgment of defendants Bill Daughtery and Larry McGill (doc. no. 88) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

(3) the Motion to Dismiss of defendants Kieran McMullen and Jack Porter (doc. no. 155) is DENIED;

(4) the Motion to Dismiss of defendants Chris Angel and John Mosley (doc. no. 157) construed as a motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;

(5) the Motion to Dismiss of defendant Grady County Detention Center (doc. no. 143) is GRANTED; and

(6) Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. no. 165) is DENIED.

This order disposes of all issues referred to the Magistrate Judge, and leaves various claims for trial.

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

VALERIE K. COUCH, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. This matter has been referred for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Defendants have filed the following dispositive motions: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Shane Wyatt and Brief in Support [Doc. #87]; (2) Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Bill Daughtery and Larry McGill and Brief in Support [Doc. # 88]; (3) Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Kieran McMullen and Jack Porter and Brief in Support [Doc. # 155]; (4) Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Chris Angel and John Mosley and Brief in Support [Doc. # 157]; and (5) Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Grady County Detention Center and Brief in Support [Doc. # 143]. In addition, the Court has received a Special Report [Doc. # 36]. Plaintiff has responded to each of the motions and Defendants, where appropriate or necessary, have replied.

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery and Brief in Support [Doc. # 165].

For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendant Wyatt’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part, Defendants Daughtery and McGill’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part, Defendants McMullen and Porter’s Motion to Dismiss be denied, Defendants Angel and Mosley’s Motion to Dismiss, construed as a motion for summary judgment, be granted, Defendant Grady County Detention Center’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery be denied.

I. Factual Background!Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff is in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and is currently incarcerated at Lawton Correctional Facility, Lawton, Oklahoma. Plaintiffs claims in this lawsuit, however, arise from his incarceration at the Grady County Detention Center (GCDC) in Chickasha, Oklahoma, for the time period March 2006 through February 2008. For the majority of this time period, Plaintiff was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee.

On March 16, 2009, with leave of court, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. # 131]. In Count I, Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement in maximum security while at GCDC. He alleges that for a period of three days during the month of November 2006, he had no drinking water, the water in his cell was turned on only twice a day long enough to flush the toilet, he was fed only cold sandwiches and he had no mattress, no towel and only minimal clothing. In Count II of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again challenges the conditions of his confinement during his incarceration at GCDC. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied recreation (inside or outside) for a period of nearly two years. In Count III of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims he was strapped to a chair for twelve hours following a suicide attempt in December 2007. Plaintiff claims the conditions of his restraint constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff further alleges he suffers from mental illness and was denied medication and treatment for his illness for a period of approximately two years, encompassing the time period both before and after his December 2007 suicide attempt.

As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $213,000.

Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) Shane Wyatt, Warden of GCDC; (2) Bill Daughtery, Lieutenant, GCDC; (3) Larry McGill, Lieutenant, GCDC; (4) Grady County Detention Center; (5) Grady County Criminal Justice Authority; (6) Kieran McMullen, Sheriff and Trustee of the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority; (7) Jack Porter, Trustee of the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority; (8) Chris Angel, Trustee of the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority; and (9) John Mosley, Trustee of the Grady County Criminal Justice Authority.

II. Standard of Review on Motions for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment should be granted where “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence and the inferences drawn from the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Calhoun v. Gaines, 982 F.2d 1470, 1472 (10th Cir.1992); Manders v. State of Oklahoma, 875 F.2d 263, 264 (10th Cir.1989). A dispute is “genuine,” when viewed in this light, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “Material facts” are “facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id.

When a Court-ordered Martinez report is part of the record, the report “is treated like an affidavit, and the court is not authorized to accept the factual findings of the prison investigation when the plaintiff has presented conflicting evidence.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1111 (10th Cir.1991). “The plaintiffs complaint may also be treated as an affidavit if it alleges facts based on the plaintiffs personal knowledge and has been sworn under penalty of perjury.” Id.

III. Deliberate Indifference Standard

The standard governing each of Plaintiffs claims — whether the claims arose during his incarceration as a pretrial detainee (governed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause) or after he was convicted (governed by the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause) — is that of deliberate indifference. To establish deliberate indifference based on either inhumane conditions of confinement or failure to attend to medical needs, a section 1983 plaintiff must satisfy both an objective component and a subjective component. Under the objective component, the deprivation alleged must be sufficiently serious; a prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Under the subjective component, the official must have acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, namely “deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.” Id. With regard to this second requirement, “a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970. The Supreme Court has explained that “deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence ... [but] something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge that harm will result.” Id. at 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970. The Court defined this “deliberate indifference” standard as equal to “recklessness,” in which “a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is aware.” Id. at 836-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970.

With these standards in mind, the Court proceeds to analysis of Plaintiffs claims and the pending dispositive motions.

IV. Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants McGill and Daughtery

A. Individual Capacity Claims

Defendants McGill and Daughtery assert the defense of qualified immunity as to each of Plaintiffs claims brought against them in their individual capacities. Defendants contend the alleged deprivations which Plaintiff endured do not rise to the level of constitutional violations. See Defendants’ Motion at 18.

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). “In qualified immunity cases at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must clear two hurdles. The plaintiff must demonstrate on the facts alleged (1) that the defendant violated his constitutional or statutory rights, and (2) that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity.” Swanson v. Town of Mountain View, Colo., 577 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir.2009) (for publication) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815-16, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)).

In raising the qualified immunity defense, Defendants do not contend qualified immunity should be granted on grounds of lack of clearly established federal law. For purposes of addressing the defense at this stage, therefore, the Court assumes the law governing Plaintiffs claims is clearly established.

1. Count I — Conditions of Maximum Security Conñnement

In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement for a three-day period while detained in a maximum security cell in GCDC’s old jail. Plaintiff alleges he was removed from the new jail on November 17, 2006, for kicking a window out in his cell. Plaintiff was immediately taken to the old jail and placed in maximum security where he remained for a total of sixty-seven days. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff challenges only the conditions for the first three days in maximum security, from November 17, 2006 through November 19, 2006.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants Daughtery and McGill were the officers responsible for Plaintiffs placement in the old jail’s maximum security unit and that these Defendants made the decision to impose the restrictive conditions on Plaintiff for the three-day period at issue. Plaintiff claims he was fed only cold sandwiches, denied all water, the water was turned off in his cell and only turned on briefly every 12 hours to allow him to flush the toilet, the cell had no mattresses or blankets, and the only clothing he was allowed to wear was a pair of boxers and a t-shirt. Plaintiff alleges he was extremely cold in his cell. According to Plaintiff, he tried to stay warm by wrapping around his feet the Saran wrap from the sandwiches he was fed. When he was caught using the Saran wrap for this purpose, he alleges the sandwiches were then handed or thrown through the bean hole unwrapped. See Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs Deposition at 45^16.

The Special Report [Doc. # 36] fails to address the factual allegations of Count I of the Complaint. Instead, in purporting to address Count I, the Special Report erroneously references Plaintiffs placement in “cell H126-SLAM” nearly one year later when, on December 28, 2007, Plaintiff attempted to commit suicide. See Special Report at 2-3. Therefore, Defendants’ citation to the Special Report as a basis for factually disputing Plaintiffs claims in Count I is erroneous and does not satisfy the movant’s burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 as the facts referenced have no relevance to the claim.

The Eighth Amendment “does not mandate comfortable prisons,” and conditions imposed may be “restrictive and even harsh.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Because the sufficiency of a conditions of confinement claim depends upon “the particular facts of each situation; the circumstances, nature, and duration of the challenged conditions must be carefully considered.” DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 974 (10th Cir.2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In general, the severity and duration of deprivations are inversely proportional, so that minor deprivations suffered for short periods would not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation, while substantial deprivations of shelter, food, drinking water, and sanitation may meet the standard despite a shorter duration. Id. at 973 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1442-43 (10th Cir.1996) (stating that “[i]t is important to consider the conditions of confinement as a whole” and citing cases where deprivation of human needs found to be Eighth Amendment violation).

a. Denial of Hot Meals

The Court finds Plaintiffs factual allegations regarding the meals provided to him are not sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff does not challenge the cold sandwiches fed to him as nutritionally inadequate nor does he claim he was required to skip meals. The fact that he was not served hot meals is insufficient to state a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, particularly since he was fed sack meals for a period of no more than three days. Compare Rogers v. Holt, 49 Fed.Appx. 231, 232 (10th Cir.2002) (unpublished op.) (fact that prisoner was fed sack lunches instead of regular meals for a period of five days did not constitute sufficiently serious deprivation to state an Eighth Amendment claim); Sawyer v. Jefferies, No. 08-3016-SAC, 2008 WL 489275 at *3 (D.Kan. Feb. 20, 2008) (unpublished op.) (no Eighth Amendment violation where plaintiff placed on sack meals for two weeks). Defendants, therefore, are entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs claim that being fed sack meals resulted in unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

b. Denial of Water

In deposition testimony, Plaintiff described the maximum security cell. He testified that the cell includes a water jug as the only source for drinking water and that inmates had to keep their own drinking cup. See Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs Deposition at 39-41, 45. Plaintiff testified that for the three-day period at issue, the water jug was removed from the cell and he was not provided a cup. He further testified that the water to the cell was turned off and “[t]hey wouldn’t turn the water on for the toilet except once every 12 hours during a shift change ... [j]ust long enough to flush the toilet if you were lucky.” See id. at 41, 45.

In moving for summary judgment Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs factual allegations or deposition testimony regarding the denial of water (or, for that matter, any of the conditions which serve as the basis of Plaintiffs claims in Count I). For example, Defendants do not provide any evidence that Plaintiff received fluids (such as juice, milk or water) with his meals or dispute that Plaintiff was denied all water for the three-day period at issue.

Plaintiffs factual allegations and testimony with respect to the denial of drinking water describe sufficiently serious conditions to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim. See Purkey v. McKune, No. 01-3019-JWL, 2004 WL 2413455 at *4 (D.Kan. Oct. 26, 2004) (unpublished op.) (prisoner’s allegations that he was deprived of drinking water for three days was a sufficiently serious condition to implicate constitutional protection). See also, Dellis v. Corrections Corp. of America, 257 F.3d 508, 512 (6th Cir.2001) (if true, Plaintiffs allegations that he was deprived drinking water for three days when the prison’s water supply went out and during that three-day period given only two half pints of milk and one sixteen and one-half ounce bottle of water stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir.2000) (finding that inmates presented a triable Eighth Amendment claim where they alleged, among other things, that they received inadequate drinking water for four days).

Nor do Defendants contend they lacked the requisite subjective state of mind which, as set forth above, requires a showing that Defendants knew of excessive risks to Plaintiff’s health and safety and purposely disregarded those risks. Defendants do not, for example, claim they lacked knowledge of the conditions of Plaintiffs confinement. Instead, Defendants’ sole basis for defending against this claim is that due to Plaintiffs attempted escape, valid security reasons existed for placing Plaintiff in maximum security and, therefore, Defendants were justified in subjecting Plaintiff to the conditions he describes. See Defendants’ Motion at 11 (“[V]alid reasons existed for placing Plaintiff in this section of the jail — he had broken a window and attempted to escape from the facility by using a rope made from torn sheets and blankets.”) (emphasis in original).

While Defendants state that “some clothing and items were taken from [Plaintiff] for security reasons____”, see Defendants’ Motion at 11, Defendants wholly fail to address why security reasons required that Plaintiff be denied water. Because Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to establish the objective and subjective components of an Eighth Amendment claim, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. And, disputed issues of material fact remain as to Plaintiffs claim that the denial of water subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

c. Lack of Adequate Heat, Clothing, Bedding

Plaintiff also challenges the conditions of confinement claiming that his limited clothing, lack of a mattress and no blankets for three days in November caused him to suffer from extreme cold. The Tenth Circuit has held the Constitution mandates that adequate heat be provided to inmates. See Ramos, supra, 639 F.2d at 568. See also Hawkes v. Wyoming Dept. of Corr. Honor Conservation Camp, No. 97-8006, 1997 WL 545594 at *2 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 1997) (unpublished op.) (“[A]n allegation of inadequate heating may state an Eighth Amendment violation,”)(citing Ramos, 639 F.2d at 568). The Tenth Circuit has found as insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim allegations that a prisoner was placed in a damp “but not freezing” isolation cell for two days where he had a blanket, a bed and food, see Ogbolu v. McLemore, No. 96-6275, 1997 WL 49449 at *2 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 1997) (unpublished op.); that a prisoner was placed in a cold, unheated detention cell for five days, but did not allege he was denied “adequate bedding, blankets, etc.” to help him deal with the cold, see Hawkes, 1997 WL 545594 at *2; and that a prisoner spent four nights and five days in a stripped basement intake cell but had “minimal” clothing and bedding, see Estrada v. Kruse, 38 Fed.Appx. 498 (10th Cir.2002) (unpublished op.).

Here, Plaintiffs allegations do not fit within the contours of any of these cases. He claims for a period of three days he faced significant cold, wearing only boxers and a t-shirt with no blankets or bedding whatsoever. The Supreme Court has recognized that where conditions have “a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as ... warmth ... the combination of such conditions might give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 305, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). Conditions that may “in combination” establish an Eighth Amendment claim, include “for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” Id.

Viewing the facts supported by competent evidence and drawing reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs factual allegations are sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact relating to whether a lack of adequate protection from the cold for the three-day period at issue was objectively sufficiently serious to violate Plaintiffs right to humane conditions of confinement. Compare Pellum v. Burtt, No. 9:05-3339-JFA-GCK, 2008 WL 759084 at *25 (D.S.C. March 20, 2008) (unpublished op.) (objective component of Eighth Amendment claim stated where prisoner had shown he was housed in a cell for four days during the month of December without a mattress, a blanket or any extra clothing) (collecting supporting federal circuit court of appeals and district court cases).

Again, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs allegations or contend the conditions complained of are not sufficiently serious. For example, Defendants do not provide any evidence about the temperatures inside the old jail, or what the outside temperatures were on the dates in question. And, though Defendants contend security concerns justified their actions, Defendants fail to provide specific facts demonstrating that penological reasons required imposition of these conditions. Defendants conclusory assertion, standing alone, is insufficient to entitle Defendants to judgment as a matter of law on this claim. Compare Mitchell, 80 F.3d at 1443 (where alleged deprivations were numerous and included lack of heat, lack of clothing and bedding and the deprivation of exercise, court may not “blindly acquiesce” to prison officials’ authority to maintain security as sufficient justification for deprivations; instead, “it [is] for the jury to determine the extent of the deprivations and the credibility of the [prison official] and his intentions”). See also Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 511, 125 S.Ct. 1141, 160 L.Ed.2d 949 (2005) (noting that “the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on full compliance with the Eighth Amendment” and that “[m]echanical deference to the findings of state prison officials in the context of the eighth amendment would reduce that provision to a nullity in precisely the context where it is most necessary”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under these circumstances, Defendants Daughtery and McGill are not entitled to summary judgment with respect to the claim raised in Count I of the Second Amended Complaint challenging the cold conditions to which Plaintiff was subjected for the three-day period in November 2006.

In sum, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity with respect to the claim raised in Count I challenging the sack meals provided to Plaintiff for the three-day period at issue in November 2006. As to all remaining conditions of confinement challenged in Count I, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be denied. Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights. The combination of conditions Plaintiff faced during this time period, Defendants’ failure to provide any evidence to discredit Plaintiffs factual allegations as to both the objective and subjective component of Plaintiffs claims, and Defendants’ failure to provide specific factual support for contending Plaintiffs conditions were justified due to penological concerns, all require denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Defendants should be held liable for the conditions to which Plaintiff was subjected.

2. Count II — Denial of Recreation and Outdoor Exercise

It is undisputed that Plaintiff was incarcerated at GCDC from March 17, 2006 through February 26, 2008 — a total of twenty-three months. It is also undisputed that Plaintiff spent approximately fourteen of those twenty-three months in the old jail. The parties have not, however, provided the dates of Plaintiffs incarceration in the old jail.

The record is silent as to the reasons why Plaintiff remained in the old jail after his release from maximum security. Although Defendants state generally (and without evidentiary support) that to move inmates from the old jail to the new jail for purposes of recreation posed a security risk, see Special Report at 3, Defendants do not state any reasons for keeping Plaintiff in the old jail once he was released from maximum security.

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that he was not only denied access to outdoor exercise while incarcerated at the old jail, but that he also was denied access to outdoor exercise during his incarceration in the new jail. Defendants respond to this with a speculative assertion that while in the new jail Plaintiff “would have been provided the opportunity for recreation.” See Motion at 4, Material Fact ¶ 16 (citing Special Report at 3) (“[Wjhile he was incarcerated in the new jail it is likely he would have been provided with the opportunity for recreation time.”) (emphasis added). Defendants submit no evidentiary support— either in their Motion or by means of the Special Report — for this assertion.

Plaintiff testified during his deposition that he might have been allowed recreation a few times while in the new jail during the first few months of his incarceration. See Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs Deposition at 64-65. But Plaintiff testified he had no fresh air for almost two years and that he suffered adversely from this deprivation:

I was put in Grady County jail on or about March 17, 2006, and left — and left on or about February 26, 2008. I was in the new jail for a while, then placed in the old jail for over one year. There is an inside recreation room at the new jail, but after being there for a few months, approximately three months, I was told by jailors that only federal inmates could go to and use the gym, the rec room. I’ve had no inside or outside recreation for almost two years. I’ve wrote a request of staffs several times on this and they, the jailors, will not answer them. I’ve had no fresh air for almost two years. Most inmates do not stay in the county jail as long as I do. This is cruel and inhumane punishment. I would not treat an animal this way, and I should have — I should have had some type of recreation. My health has suffered because of this. This has made my depression so much worse that it already was. Also Lieutenant Bill Daughtery told me that by filing lawsuits and grievances on these issues, I would be placed — I would be put someplace I don’t want to be which means strapped to a chair and/or put in cells where other inmates would cause violence to me.

See id. at 63-64. See also id. at 78-80 (discussing weight fluctuation, paranoia, increased depression).

The Tenth Circuit has recognized “substantial agreement among the cases” that “some form of regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the psychological and physical well being of inmates.” Fogle v. Pierson, supra, 435 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir.1987) and citing Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 810 (10th Cir.1999)). See also Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597, 599 (10th Cir.1994) (“Although we have never expressly held that prisoners have a constitutional right to exercise, there can be no doubt that total denial of exercise for an extended period of time would constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment”).

The Tenth Circuit determined in Fogle that “a factfinder might conclude that the risk of harm from three years of deprivation of any form of outdoor exercise was obvious and that [prison] officials disregarded that risk by keeping [the prisoner] in administrative segregation.” Fogle, 435 F.3d at 1260. In an unpublished opinion decided after Fogle, the Tenth Circuit held that a one-year deprivation of outdoor exercise “is not sufficiently serious to implicate the Eighth Amendment.” Ajaj v. United States, 293 Fed.Appx. 575, 584 (10th Cir.2008) (unpublished op.).

This case falls squarely between a one-year and three-year deprivation. The Court declines, therefore, to find as a matter of law that Plaintiffs deprivation is not sufficiently serious. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege only a denial of outdoor recreation, but a denial of any recreation at all.

As with the claims raised in Count I, in addressing the denial of recreation, Defendants have not provided specific evidence or rationale to support a finding that Plaintiffs deprivation of exercise served a legitimate penological interest. Therefore, to the extent Defendants contend security concerns prevented the provision of recreation to Plaintiff, their contention is eonclusory and insufficient to serve as a basis for granting summary judgment.

Defendants have not addressed the subjective component of the Eighth Amendment analysis. In Fogle, the Tenth Circuit found that the very fact that a risk is obvious may lead the factfinder to conclude a prison official knew of a substantial risk of harm and therefore, that the district court erred in finding the prisoner had not alleged prison officials acted with deliberate indifference. Fogle, 435 F.3d at 1260. See also Mitchell, supra, 80 F.3d at 1442 (“Deliberate indifference does not require a finding of express intent to harm.”). A three-year deprivation, the court concluded, sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference by prison officials. Fogle, 435 F.3d at 1260. As in Fogle, Plaintiffs near complete denial of exercise for a period of approximately two years constitutes an obvious risk that may lead the factfinder to conclude Defendants knew of a substantial risk of harm. Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights and, therefore, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in Defendants favor on Plaintiffs claims raised in Count II of the Second Amended Complaint.

3. Count III — Deliberate Indifference to Plaintiff’s Mental Health

a. Use of Restraint Chair

In Count III of the Second Amended Complaint Plaintiff first claims his constitutional rights were violated when he was placed in a restraint chair for twelve hours following an attempted suicide on December 28, 2007. Plaintiff alleges he was strapped to the restraint chair even though he was not violent, combative or argumentative. Plaintiff alleges Defendants McGill and Daughtery strapped him to the chair and directed that Plaintiff remain in the chair for twelve hours. While strapped in the chair, Plaintiff alleges he was forced to sit in his own waste for at least ten hours. Plaintiff claims he suffered bruising to his arms and legs as a result of being strapped in the restraint chair. See Second Amended Complaint, Count III, Supporting Facts (electronic page 10); see also Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs Deposition at 89-97; Defendants’ Motion [Doc. # 88], Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs Deposition at 102,103.

Defendants do not dispute use of the restraint chair following Plaintiffs suicide attempt but contend Plaintiff was in the restraint chair for only six hours. See Defendants’ Motion, Material Facts at 5, ¶ 22. Defendants purport to support this contention with citation to unauthenticated prison logs attached to the Special Report. See id. The prison logs are dated from December 28, 2007 through December 31, 2007. See id. Attachment 3. Included among the entries for December 28, 2007, there is an entry made at 12:13 p.m. which reads: “I/M Langford in holding chair for attempting suicide.” That entry is followed by 13 additional entries which read: “I/M Langford appears OK”, spanning a period of approximately 6 hours up until 6:30 p.m. The duty officer responsible for these entries is identified as Larry McBride. No entry, however, shows the time at which Plaintiff was released from the restraint chair. Defendants have not provided an affidavit from Larry McBride or other witnesses, or provided other evidence establishing, as an undisputed fact, that Plaintiff was only in the restraint chair for six hours.

Instead, citing only Plaintiffs deposition testimony, Defendants contend that because no clock was in the cell where Plaintiff was kept in restraint there is no way Plaintiff would have known the length of time he was restrained. See Defendants’ Motion, Material Facts at 6, ¶ 26 (“The cell with the restraint chair does not contain a clock, so Plaintiff had no way of knowing how long he was restrained in the chair.”). Plaintiff responds that he remained in the chair following a shift change. According to Plaintiff, an individual named Matt Lane came on duty after the first six hours of his restraint. See Plaintiffs Response at electronic page 17, ¶ 26. The prison logs attached to the Special Report support this allegation, showing that Matt Lane began his shift at 7:00 p.m. on December 28, 2007. See Special Report, Exhibit 3, Daily Log at 2. Plaintiff alleges he continued to be strapped to the restraint chair for a number of hours during Matt Lane’s shift. See Plaintiffs Response at electronic page 17. See also Plaintiffs Response, Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs Deposition at 89, 95-97.

Disputed issues of fact, therefore, exist with respect to the duration of Plaintiffs restraint and for purposes of summary judgment, the Court must construe the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants do not dispute, or for that matter even address Plaintiffs allegation that he was denied a bathroom break and forced to sit in his own waste for a substantial majority of the time spent in restraint. Again, the Court must construe this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

Defendants state conclusorily that Plaintiff was only placed in the restraint chair for the protection of himself and jail staff. Defendants submit no evidence, however, that demonstrates Plaintiff was violent, combative or argumentative. Nor do Defendants explain why restraint for at least as much as six hours was necessary. Moreover, Defendants submit no evidence that medical staff were called upon to attend to Plaintiff. Indeed, as discussed below, Plaintiff was never provided any medical assistance for his mental health needs for the duration of his incarceration at GCDC.

In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002), the United States Supreme Court found an Eighth Amendment violation where a prisoner was left shirtless, shackled to a hitching post outdoors for seven hours in the sun, denied bathroom breaks and provided water only once or twice. Significant to the Court’s holding was the fact that “safety concerns had long since abated by the time petitioner was handcuffed.” Id. at 738, 122 S.Ct. 2508. As the Court found:

Despite the clear lack of an emergency situation, the respondents knowingly subjected him to a substantial risk of physical harm, to unnecessary pain caused by the handcuffs and the restricted position for a 7-hour period, to unnecessary exposure to the heat of the sun, to prolonged thirst and taunting, and to a deprivation of bathroom breaks that created a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation. The use of the hitching post under these circumstances violated the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment which is nothing less than the dignity of man.

Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). Accepting Plaintiffs allegations as true and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has stated a violation of his constitutional rights. Like the prisoner in Hope, Plaintiff was subjected to a restricted position for many hours (up to twelve hours and no less than six hours), forced to defecate on himself when denied a bathroom break, and not provided any other form of relief.

Defendants claim they are not liable for any constitutional violations resulting from the restraint because their involvement ceased once Plaintiff was restrained. See Defendants’ Motion, Material Facts at 6, ¶ 27 (“McGill and Daughtery were not involved in any events which occurred between the time [Plaintiff] was placed in the [restraint] chair and the time he was released.”). Because Defendants were responsible for Plaintiffs restraint, a reasonable inference from the facts alleged is that Plaintiff remained in restraint at the direction and control of Defendants. A question of fact exists as to whether Defendants knew the restraint resulted in an excessive risk of harm to Plaintiff.

In sum, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate the restraint subjected him to a sufficiently serious risk of harm to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim. In addition, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate Defendants acted with deliberate indifference with respect to the restraint. Defendants, therefore, are not entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and drawing reasonable inferences from those facts, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Plaintiffs claim challenging use of the restraint chair and preclude summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

b. Denial of Access to Mental Health Treatment

As part of the claim raised in Count III of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff further alleges that for the entire period of his incarceration at GCDC he was denied medical treatment to address his mental health needs despite repeated requests to Defendants McGill and Daughtery. “[M]edical treatment for inmates’ ... psychological or psychiatric care” is included as part of the medical care a State is constitutionally obligated to provide to incarcerated persons. Ramos, 639 F.2d at 574. See also Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 834 (11th Cir.1990) (“[Djeliberate indifference to an inmate’s need for mental health care is actionable on eighth amendment grounds.”) (collecting cases from the federal circuit courts of appeal).

The record includes a single Request to Staff dated July 30, 2007, pursuant to which Plaintiff made the following request:

You told me when I first came in to jail on 3-17-06 the only way to receive meds I was on (Lithium) was thru my attorney. Who does he need to talk to or how can he get this done. I really need my meds. I have a lot of problems without them.

See Special Report, Exhibit 4. An individual named Stallings provided this response to Plaintiff: ‘You have to have your attorney request the Court to have a Psych evaluation done on you in order to receive such medication.” See id.

The record does not include any further requests or grievances filed by Plaintiff. Yet, Plaintiff alleges that he submitted numerous requests to staff related to mental health treatment and Defendants refused to respond to these requests. Defendants have not disputed Plaintiffs allegations.

Instead, Defendants rely on the instructions provided in the facility’s response to Plaintiffs Request to Staff as a basis for justifying Plaintiffs denial of medication or treatment. See Defendants’ Motion at 16 (