Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01520/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01520-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1520

___________

Chris R. Krych, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

Howard Lansing Hines; Robert Monge; * District Court for the

Emil Johnson; Wardell Hicks, and on * District of Minnesota.

behalf of all others similarly situated, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Wendell Anderson, individually and as *

Governor of the State of Minnesota; *

Kenneth Schoen, individually and as *

Corrections Commissioner for the State *

of Minnesota; Bruce McManus, *

individually and as Warden of the *

Minnesota State Prison; James Cicero, *

individually and as Medical Director of *

the Minnesota State Prison; Warren *

Lawson, individually and as Secretary *

and Executive Officer of the Minnesota *

State Board of Health, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2004

Filed: November 16, 2004

___________

Appellate Case: 04-1520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2004 Entry ID: 1834277 
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Chris Krych, who is currently housed in the Administrative

Control Unit of the Minnesota Correctional Facility-Oak Park Heights, appeals the

district court’s1

 denial of his motion for contempt, which he brought pursuant to a

consent decree entered in Hines v. Anderson, 439 F. Supp. 12 (D. Minn. 1977).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we cannot say the district court abused

its discretion in finding that the defendants substantially complied with the Hines

decree, and thus in denying Krych’s contempt motion. See Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34

F.3d 614, 616 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review; substantial, good-faith compliance

is defense).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). We also deny Krych’s motion

for release.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2004 Entry ID: 1834277