Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02141/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2141

___________

Kevin Lee Austin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Craighead County Jail; Bill Clayton, *

Deputy Sheriff, Craighead County * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sheriff’s Department; Norris Watkins, *

Administrator, Craighead County Jail; *

Matt Vaughn, Assistant Administrator, *

Craighead County Jail; Matthew D. *

Whitley, Deputy Sheriff, Craighead *

County Sheriff’s Department; Lillard, *

Deputy Sheriff, Craighead County *

Sheriff’s Department; Branch, Deputy *

Sheriff, Craighead County Sheriff’s *

Department; Jodie Miller, Deputy *

Sheriff, Craighead County Sheriff’s *

Department; Richerson, Deputy Sheriff, *

Craighead County Sheriff’s *

Department; S. M. Blanchard, *

Physician with Craighead County *

Sheriff’s Department; Steve Metcalf, *

Paramedic with Craighead County Jail, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2006

Filed: July 12, 2006

___________

Appellate Case: 05-2141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066552
1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Austin, a federal inmate formerly housed at the Craighead County Jail,

brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming Eighth Amendment violations by jail

personnel. He alleged, as relevant, that while he was in administrative segregation,

bare electrical wires in his cell touched his bed sheet and made it “explode,” injuring

his eyes and causing him to lose his sight for about an hour; and that he was not

examined by the jail doctor until the next day, and was not referred to an eye

specialist. Following a bench trial, the district court1

 dismissed the case with

prejudice. Austin appeals.

We find no basis for reversal. See Estate of Davis v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388,

1393-94 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review); United States v. Martin, 28 F.3d 742,

745-46 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court’s determination as to credibility of witness is

virtually unreviewable on appeal). Even assuming there was electricity in the wires

in Austin’s cell, as he alleged, the testimony showed that the defendant jail

administrator believed the power to the wires had been cut off, and Austin did not

show that defendants actually knew of and disregarded, or were deliberately

indifferent to, a risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 837

(1994); Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601-02 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, Austin

did not prove he was denied adequate medical care while at the jail. He saw the jail

doctor the day following his alleged injury and again twenty days later; because the

examinations were normal, the doctor did not believe referral to an eye specialist was

warranted, and he prescribed eye drops in an attempt to alleviate Austin’s reported

symptoms. See Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (mere

Appellate Case: 05-2141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066552
-3-

disagreement with course of medical treatment was insufficient to state Eighth

Amendment claim). In addition, Austin saw an eye doctor after he was transferred to

federal custody, and he did not offer any evidence that he was harmed by the delay in

seeing a specialist. See Sherrer v. Stephens, 50 F.3d 496, 496-97 (8th Cir. 1994) (per

curiam).

Austin specifically abandoned at trial any claim regarding his placement in

administrative segregation, and his complaints about the performance of his attorney

are not cognizable in this civil action, see Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th

Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Austin’s motion for appointment of

counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2006 Entry ID: 2066552