California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Daniels v. McKinney, 146 Cal.App.3d 42, 193 Cal.Rptr. 842 (Cal. App. 1983):
On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and the plan proposed by the sheriff, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision which contained an exercise plan for all jail inmates. 2 In making its decision, the court ruled that shortages of personnel or other resources by the sheriff did not justify [146 Cal.App.3d 48] a failure to provide inmates with an opportunity for exercise, citing Spain v. Procunier (9th Cir.1979) 600 F.2d 189, 190. Nevertheless, because the sheriff had made a good faith effort to comply with the previous order in Poland v. McKinney relating to female inmates and had demonstrated a continued willingness to comply, he (the sheriff) was not in willful contempt.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.