United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10721
Summary Calendar
DEJUAN ANDRE BOULDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PRISCELLA MILES; BOBBY THOMPSON; JERRY BECK,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CV-422
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
DeJuan Andre Boulds, Texas prisoner No. 7687730, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Boulds alleged that, on specific dates in
December 2005 and February 2006, he was subjected to sub-freezing
temperatures in his cell because the prison heating system was not
working properly. Boulds further alleged that, in addition to
failing to maintain and repair the prison heating system, the
defendants failed to provide prisoners with supplemental heaters
and extra blankets during extremely cold periods and that they
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-10721
-2-
failed to investigate and respond to complaints that the heat was
not working. Bould attached to his complaint prison grievance
forms showing that he had exhausted his administrative remedies
with regard to both periods when his cell was allegedly not heated.
The district court held that Boulds’s allegations of
“extremely cold temperatures in his cell block” did not state a
violation of the Eighth Amendment because the Constitution does not
require “comfortable prisons.” See, e.g., Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 349 (1981) (holding that double-celling is
constitutional). The district court also held that the allegation
that prison officials failed to investigate Boulds’s complaints and
were deliberately indifferent to his needs did not state a claim
for relief because Boulds had not shown “that the defendants
exhibited anything more than a lack of due care” and that he had
failed to establish that they had “a culpable state of mind.”
A prison official has a duty to provide prisoners “the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501
U.S. 294, 304 (1991). This requirement includes a responsibility
to provide “adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Allowing a prisoner
to be exposed to extreme temperatures may violate the Eighth
Amendment. See Wilson, 501 U.S. at 304; Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d
323, 333-40 (5th Cir. 2004). In Wilson, the Supreme Court
speculated that the combination of a failure to issue blankets and
a cold cell at night could violate the Eighth Amendment. Moreover,
No. 06-10721
-3-
Boulds’s charge that he complained to prison officials about the
cold adequately alleges a culpable state of mind. We vacate the
dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.