Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01873/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01873-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1873

___________

Donald J. Dockery, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Bob Houston; Patricia Ryan; Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED]

Bennett, Officer; Juanita Brown, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2007

Filed: May 3, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pretrial detainee Donald J. Dockery appeals the district court’s1

 orders

dismissing one defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and

granting summary judgment to the remaining defendants, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762,

765 (8th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard of review); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91

F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review),

Appellate Case: 06-1873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2007 Entry ID: 3305618
-2-

we affirm. Assuming that Dockery intended to bring both official-capacity and

individual-capacity claims, we conclude that the jail policy at issue in this case was

not unconstitutional because it required correctional officers to notify the medical

department of any request by an inmate for emergency medical care; and we find no

support in the record for any unconstitutional custom. See Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d

802, 810-11 (8th Cir. 2006) (official-capacity liability under § 1983). We also find

no basis for individual liability: Dockery cannot sue for allegedly false statements in

a grievance response, see Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam) (prison grievance procedure does not confer substantive rights actionable

under § 1983), and there is no evidence suggesting that any named defendant was

personally involved in knowingly disregarding Dockery’s serious medical needs, see

Hughes v. Stottlemyre, 454 F.3d 791, 798 (8th Cir. 2006) (no respondeat superior

liability under § 1983); Vaughn v. Greene County, 438 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2006)

(to show defendants were deliberately indifferent to pretrial detainee’s serious medical

needs, it must be shown that they disregarded known risk to his health). 

To the extent that Dockery sought to assert a constitutional claim based on his

post-hospitalization lockdown, we find that the lockdown did not constitute deliberate

indifference, see id., or violate his due process rights, cf. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545

U.S. 209, 222-23 (2005) (noting that there is no protected liberty interest against 30-

day assignment to segregation). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial

of appointed counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.

2006) (standard of review; relevant criteria). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2007 Entry ID: 3305618