Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03698/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03698-0/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. 03-3698

___________

Russell D. Turner; Martin Randall, *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

Vernon Moves Camp, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Fred Ponca, Jr.; Pius Smashed Ice; *

Royce C. Hamilton; Phillip Steele; *

Duane Ice; Steven Anowlic; Jon * Appeal from the United States

Anderson; Robert Murray; Aaron * District Court for the

Breitag; Michael Bates, and all other * District of South Dakota.

persons similarly situated, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

Mark W. Barnett, Attorney General; *

Jeff Bloomberg, Secretary of *

Department of Corrections; Douglas L. *

Weber, Warden, South Dakota State *

Penitentiary; Bob Dooley, Warden, *

Mike Durfee State Prison, Springfield, *

South Dakota; Duane Russell, Warden, *

South Dakota Women’s Prison, and *

all other unnamed defendants, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Appellate Case: 03-3698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2004 Entry ID: 1796674 
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota. 

-2-

Submitted: July 27, 2004

Filed: August 6, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Vernon Moves Camp appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action he and fourteen other South

Dakota inmates brought. Because Moves Camp’s brief fails to identify any error in

the district court’s final order, we conclude he has abandoned the claims raised in the

complaint. Cf. Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam) (dismissing pro se litigant’s appeal where brief presented no question for

appellate court to decide). To the extent Moves Camp is arguing that his motions for

permanent or emergency injunctions were wrongfully denied, we agree with the

district court that he cannot challenge the legality of his continued confinement in a

section 1983 action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 499-500 (1973)

(inmate challenging duration of his physical imprisonment must exhaust state

remedies and petition for writ of habeas corpus); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45

(8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (if judgment in favor of prisoner in § 1983 action would

necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence,

then no claim for damages lies unless conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,

or called into question by issuance of writ of habeas corpus). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Moves Camp’s

pending motions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2004 Entry ID: 1796674