Shane Douglas Bell v. William Voight, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Mr. Bell's three pending motions for injunctions are denied as moot. [4350708-2], [4374126-2], [4377434-2] [4401296] [15-3389]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3389
___________________________
Shane Douglas Bell
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
William Voight, Corrections Officer at South Dakota State Penitentiary, individual
and official capacity; Jeremy Wendling, Corrections Officer Sgt. at South Dakota
State Penitentiary, individual and official capacity; Samuel Yost, Corrections
Officer, Cpl. at South Dakota State Penitentiary, individual and official capacity;
Jessica Cook, Unit Manager at South Dakota State Penitentiary, individual and
official capacity; John Doe #1, Corrections Officer at South Dakota State
Penitentiary, individual and official capacity; Darin Young, Warden at South
Dakota State Penitentiary, individual and official capacity; John Doe #2,
Corrections Officer at South Dakota State Penitentiary, individual and official capacity
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
____________
Submitted: May 10, 2016
Filed: May 23, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________

Appellate Case: 15-3389

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401296

PER CURIAM.
South Dakota inmate Shane Douglas Bell appeals the district court’s1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review and
careful consideration of Mr. Bell’s arguments, see Holt v. Howard, 806 F.3d 1129,
1132 (8th Cir. 2015), we find no basis for reversal. Specifically, we agree with the
district court that, even assuming that Mr. Bell had a bloody nose and defendants did
not take him to medical services the day he was injured in a fight with another inmate,
he failed to produce evidence that defendants actually knew of and deliberately
disregarded signs that his injuries were serious and required immediate medical
attention. See Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771-72 (8th Cir.) (requirements to
prevail on Eighth Amendment claim; inmate must show that defendants were more
than grossly negligent, and that their mental state was akin to criminal recklessness,
i.e., they disregarded known risk to his health), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 211 (2015);
Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (there is no § 1983 liability for
violation of prison policy); see also Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th
Cir. 2016) (to prevail on claim that delay in medical care constituted cruel and
unusual punishment, inmate must show deprivation of serious medical need and
deliberate indifference to his health and safety; objective seriousness of deprivation
is measured by reference to effect of delay, which must be established by verifying
medical evidence). Further, the court did not abuse its wide discretion in denying Mr.
Bell’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) request for a continuance. See Jackson,
815 F.3d at 1121 (discussing requirements for continuance under Rule 56(d)). The
judgment of the district court is affirmed, and we deny as moot Mr. Bell’s three
pending motions for injunctions.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3389

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/23/2016 Entry ID: 4401296