Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01987/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01987-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1987

___________

Joseph Albert Taylor, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Raymond Edelman, Caseworker, in his *

official and individual capacity; *

Cifarelli, Corporal, in his official and *

individual capacity; John Does, *

Unidentified Officers, in their official *

and individual capacities; Unknown * Appeal from the United States 

Sulley, Sergeant, in his official and * District Court for the

individual capacity; Randy Crosby, * District of Nebraska.

Case Manager, in his official and *

individual capacity; Robert Madsen, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Unit Manager, in his official and *

individual capacity; Jane Doe, *

Unidentified Nurse, in her official *

and individual capacity; Frank X. *

Hopkins, N.S.P. Warden, in his *

official and individual capacity; *

John Doe, Unidentified Deputy *

Director, in his official and individual *

capacity; Harold W. Clarke, N.D.C.S. *

Director, in his official and individual *

capacity, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 06-1987 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2007 Entry ID: 3359348
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

-2-

___________

Submitted: October 2, 2007 

Filed: October 5, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Nebraska inmate Joseph Taylor appeals the

adverse judgment entered by the district court1

 after a three-day bench trial. Taylor

had claimed that Nebraska prison officials used excessive force to remove him from

his cell and transport him to a holding area while a night light in his cell was being

replaced; that prison officials thereafter obstructed his access to medical treatment;

and that supervisory prison officials sanctioned the excessive use of force by failing

to investigate his grievances and take action against the offending parties. Having

reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law

de novo, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Estate of Davis v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388, 1393-94

(8th Cir. 1997), we affirm.

 

In particular, the evidence supports the district court’s findings that defendants

used an appropriate amount of force in a good faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline when Taylor refused to submit to handcuffing halfway through the process,

and when he directed threatening remarks at one prison official and made some

physical movement toward him after submitting to restraints; that Taylor failed to

request medical treatment after the use-of-force incident; and that the supervisory

defendants’ responses to Taylor’s untimely grievances did not show they sanctioned

or were any way involved in an excessive use of force. See generally Hudson v.

Appellate Case: 06-1987 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2007 Entry ID: 3359348
-3-

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (prisoner required to demonstrate officers used

force maliciously and sadistically rather than in good-faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976) (deliberate indifference to

serious medical need); Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001)

(supervisor liable only if he directly participates in constitutional violation or had

notice that training procedures and supervision were inadequate and likely to result

in constitutional violation); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam) (prison grievance procedure does not give rise to protected liberty interest;

failure to process grievances, without more, is not actionable under § 1983).

We also conclude that Taylor has not established that the district court abused

its discretion with regard to any evidentiary matters, see McPheeters v. Black &

Veatch Corp., 427 F.3d 1095, 1101-02 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), and that

his remaining arguments on appeal either are not properly before us, see Fed. R. App.

P. 3(c)(1)(B), are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, or are without merit.

The judgment is affirmed, and Taylor’s motion for library access is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1987 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2007 Entry ID: 3359348