Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01509/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01509-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1509

___________

Michael Clavier, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Unknown Goodson, Sgt.; Unknown *

Wilson, Lt.; Unknown Toppins, Lt., * [UNPUBLISHED]

in their individual and official *

capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May10, 2007

Filed: May 21, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Michael Clavier appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against three correctional officers in their individual and

official capacities. Clavier alleged that, based on their incorrect belief that he had

Appellate Case: 06-1509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2007 Entry ID: 3311246
-2-

ingested drugs during a prison visit, defendants gave him a choice between drinking

water to induce vomiting or spending time in a “dry cell” (a cell without plumbing);

he chose the vomiting option to avoid spending several days handcuffed in a dry cell,

and as a result he suffered a sore throat and bruised muscle. Clavier claimed, as

relevant to this appeal, that defendants’ actions violated his Eighth Amendment rights,

and he requested damages and injunctive relief. 

We conclude that dismissal was proper because defendants’ actions did not

amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319

(1986) (only unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment forbidden by Eighth Amendment); Avalos v. City of Glenwood, 382 F.3d

792, 798 (8th Cir. 2004) (if no constitutional right has been violated, further inquiry

regarding qualified immunity is unnecessary). Clavier’s remaining arguments are

without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2007 Entry ID: 3311246