Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02220/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02220-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2220

___________

William A. Larson, * 

* 

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * Western District of Missouri.

* 

Gary Kempker; Michael Kemna; * 

George Lombardi, * 

* 

Appellees. * 

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2005

Filed: July 15, 1005

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

William A. Larson appeals from summary judgment entered in the district

court1

 dismissing his claim for damages against Missouri prison officials based upon

his alleged excessive exposure to cigarette smoke while imprisoned. For reversal,

Larson argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, in denying

his motion for preliminary injunction, and in granting Gary Kempker, director of the

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
2

CCC has a policy of prohibiting smoking inside any building, including

inmates' cells. Records show that between September 2001 and December 2003, 126

conduct violations for smoking were issued to prisoners. Since December 1999,

Larson has been housed in a two-man cell with an inmate who does not smoke. Some

of Larson's prior cellmates did smoke. The evidence fails to show when Larson was

housed with the various cell mates who smoked. The evidence indicates that the

prohibition on smoking is not strongly enforced or is often circumvented. 

-2-

Missouri Department of Corrections' motion to exclude testimony. We find no

reversible error and affirm. 

I. Background

In 1982, William A. Larson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to

life imprisonment. In 1997, Larson was transferred to the Crossroads Correctional

Center (CCC) where he remains incarcerated. In August 1998, Larson filed a

complaint regarding inmate smoking but never received a response. Larson filed a

second complaint in November 2000. The second complaint was converted to a

grievance and denied. Larson's appeal was lost, requiring him to refile his appeal.

Larson's appeal was then denied. In September 2001, Larson filed a third smoking

complaint, which was denied and converted to a grievance. The grievance was denied

as was Larson's appeal. Larson then filed this suit in the district court under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997.

In addition to Kempker, Larson sued George Lombardi, director of the

Missouri Division of Adult Institutions, and Michael Kemna, superintendent of CCC

(collectively referred to as Kempker). Larson's suit alleged the defendants did not

adequately protect him from exposure to second-hand smoke.2

 Larson has not been

diagnosed with an allergy to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or with any current

respiratory illness, disease or defect. Larson tested negative for coronary artery

disease. Larson testified that years ago he was diagnosed as suffering from Asperger's

Disorder, making him antisocial and necessitating that he be placed in a one-man cell.

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
-3-

However, there is no medical record documentation for Asperger's Disorder or

documentation connecting it with ETS. Larson believes there is such a connection.

Larson sought an injunction as well as damages for infliction of cruel and unusual

punishment and for denial of due process.

Following discovery, Kempker moved to exclude Larson's expert, Dr. A.

Judson Wells from testifying on the basis that Dr. Wells' testimony failed to meet the

requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or those of Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Kempker also moved for summary

judgment based on an Eleventh Amendment defense that there was no Eighth or

Fourteenth Amendment abridgment of Larson's rights, and that the district court

lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. Larson moved for leave to file a second

amended complaint in order to sue Kempker individually. Larson subsequently filed

a motion for a preliminary injunction, in part requesting the relief sought in the

complaint and in part requesting that he be housed in a different location. 

In a single order, the district court granted Kempker's motion for summary

judgment and Kempker's motion to exclude Dr. Wells' testimony and denied Larson's

motion to file a second amended complaint and Larson's preliminary injunction. From

that decision Larson appeals. 

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

We review a district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo.

Bowen v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 311 F.3d 878, 880 (8th Cir. 2002). Rule 56(c) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is properly

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). The district court

reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ludwig v.

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
3

Kempker argues that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the present suit

because the state has not consented to be sued. Eleventh Amendment immunity bars

a § 1983 lawsuit against a state agency or state official in official capacity even if the

entity is the moving force behind the deprivation of the federal right. See Kentucky

v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); Morstad v. Department of Corrections &

Rehabilitation, 147 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Graham and holding that

absent a waiver "the Eleventh Amendment immunizes the state and its officials acting

in their official capacities from § 1983 liability"); Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750,

754 (8th Cir. 1997) (providing that without a clear statement that officials are being

sued in personal capacities, complaint is interpreted as including only officialcapacity claims). Section 1983 does not contain a clear legislative statement

abrogating a state's immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Quern v. Jordan, 440

U.S. 332, 345 (1979).

-4-

Anderson, 54 F.3d 465, 470 (8th Cir. 1995). The nonmoving party must show the

existence of facts on the record which create a genuine issue. Krenik v. County of Le

Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995).

B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

We first address whether the Eleventh Amendment bars this suit as contended

by Kempker against the defendants in their official capacities.

3 Larson's original

complaint stated that he was suing two of the defendants in their official and

individual capacity. However, when Larson filed a First Amended Complaint and

added Lombardi as a defendant, the complaint failed to indicate that he was suing the

defendants in their individual capacities. Technically, Larson's complaint had to

"contain a clear statement of his wish to sue defendants in their individual capacities."

Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 620 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Nix v.

Norman, 879 F.2d 429 (8th Cir. 1989).

Here, however, this omission is not fatal to Larson's claim. In his complaint,

Larson named the defendants individually without reference to the State of Missouri.

We have held that "[o]ver the years . . . important exceptions to state immunity from

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
-5-

suit have been recognized which allow citizens to vindicate rights infringed on by the

state. If a state official is named as a defendant instead of the state or one of its

agencies, the Eleventh Amendment status of the suit is less straightforward." Nix v.

Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 432 (8th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted) (citing

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986)). Although the Eleventh Amendment

bars suits 

seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from

public funds in the state treasury, . . . courts may order

injunctions to prevent or remedy a state officer's conduct .

. . . Courts may also award a wide range of prospective

relief which serves to bring an end to a present violation of

federal law . . . even though accompanied by a substantial

ancillary effect on the state treasury. 

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). We hold that the district court had the

discretion to order injunctive relief. 

C. Denial of Preliminary Injunction on Eighth Amendment Claim

Larson contends the district court misapplied Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S.

25 (1993) in assessing the future risk to his health created by continued exposure to

ETS. In Helling the Supreme Court held that a prisoner could state a cause of action

under the Eighth Amendment by alleging that prison officials had permitted him to

be exposed to levels of tobacco smoke that presented an unreasonable risk of serious

harm to future health. To obtain an injunction, Helling requires Larson to prove both

objective and subjective elements of an Eighth Amendment claim. Id. at 35. "With

respect to the objective factor, [Larson] must show that he himself is being exposed

to unreasonably high levels of ETS." Id. (emphasis added). The Helling Court took

into consideration that the inmate was not presently housed with a smoker. The

objective factor requires "more than a scientific and statistical inquiry into the

seriousness of the potential harm and the likelihood that such injury to health will

actually be caused by exposure to ETS. It also requires a court to assess whether

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
-6-

society considers the risk that the prisoner complains of to be so grave that it violates

contemporary standards of decency to expose anyone unwillingly to such a risk." Id.

at 36 (emphasis in original). 

The district court found that Larson failed to meet the objective test and denied

his requested injunction. Our review confirms the finding of the district court that

Larson failed to put forth objective evidence that he was subjected to unreasonably

high levels of ETS. Larson's expert performed no scientific tests to establish the

levels of ETS in Larson's cell. Furthermore, Larson did not present any other reliable

basis to estimate the levels of ETS to which he is exposed or specific evidence

concerning how those levels of ETS would affect his future health. The district court

was correct in denying Larson's motion for a preliminary injunction. The evidence is

insufficient to establish Larson was subjected to an unreasonable risk of harm from

ETS. Having determined that Larson failed to satisfy the objective element of an

Eighth Amendment claim, we need not address the subjective element.

D. Exclusion of Expert Testimony

Next, Larson argues that the district court erred by excluding the testimony of

Dr. Wells under Fed. R. Evid. 702.We review a district court's decision to exclude

expert testimony for abuse of discretion. Meterlogic, Inc. v. KLT, Inc., 368 F.3d 1017,

1019 (8th Cir. 2004) (citing Children's Broad. Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 357 F.3d

860, 864 (8th Cir. 2004). "The district court must exclude expert testimony if it is so

fundamentally unreliable that it can offer no assistance to the jury, otherwise, the

factual basis of the testimony goes to the weight of the evidence." Id. (internal

quotations omitted).

The district court excluded the testimony of Dr. Wells after determining that

Dr. Wells did not have the education or training in any field that would permit him

to testify about second-hand smoke. The district court stated "[h]e may have read

what other experts have written on the subject, but this does not qualify him to speak

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
-7-

with authority on the subject; at best, all he can say is what experts in the field have

written on the topic." We hold the district court erred in excluding Dr. Wells'

testimony.

Admission of expert testimony is guided by the principles of Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). There are two requirements under

Rule 702—(1) the knowledge must be scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge; and (2) the knowledge must assist the trier of fact to understand the

evidence or to determine a fact in issue. 

Scientific "implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science.

Similarly, the word knowledge connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported

speculation." Id. at 590 (internal quotations omitted). "Proposed testimony must be

supported by appropriate validation—i.e., good grounds, based on what is known."

Id. (internal quotations omitted). Assisting the trier of fact goes to relevance. Id. at

591. An "expert is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are

not based on firsthand knowledge—a rule which represents a most pervasive

manifestation of the common law—insistence upon the most reliable sources of

information." Id. at 592 (internal quotations omitted). 

A key question in determining whether knowledge is scientific is whether a

theory or technique can or has been tested. Id. at 593. Another question is "whether

the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication." Id. Rule

702 is flexible. Id. at 594. We agree with the district court that "an expert may

extrapolate from data supplied by other experts, see Fed. R. Evid. 703, but a person

does not become an expert simply by reviewing an expert's reports or research." 

The district court did not believe that Dr. Wells' testimony would aid the jury

because he "cannot describe the specific health effects of varying levels of ETS," nor

can he testify "about the levels of ETS to which [Larson] is exposed." The court

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
-8-

found that Dr. Wells' calculations and conclusions were not accurate and therefore not

based "on sufficient facts or data as Rule 702 requires." Finally, the district court

concluded it would have granted Kempker's motion for summary judgment even

considering Dr. Wells' testimony because the testimony failed to "provide the jury

with the information necessary to permit a verdict in [Larson's] favor and would not

create a factual dispute sufficient to preclude summary judgment." 

 "As a general rule, the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility

of the testimony, not the admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine

the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination." Hose v. Chicago NW Transp.

Co., 70 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Loudermill

v. Dow Chem. Co., 863 F.2d 566, 570 (8th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Evid. 703)). It is "only

if an expert's opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance

to the jury must such testimony be excluded." Loudermill, 863 F.2d at 570. 

We hold that Dr. Wells was qualified as an expert to testify regarding the

deleterious health effects of ETS. Dr. Wells has over twenty-three years of ETS

experience. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Harvard University and was

a principal consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Dr. Wells

authored the EPA's 1992 report on second-hand smoke and respiratory diseases,

including lung cancer. Dr. Wells has served as a consultant to the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration and was one of three United States experts to

advise the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit of the University of Toronto in its report

"Protection from Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in Ontario: a Review of

the Evidence, for the Ontario Ministry of Health." He has testified before the

Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment and the

Committee on Science and Technology, United States House of Representatives, and

before a Delaware legislative committee regarding second-hand smoke. Additionally,

Dr. Wells has written scientific articles that have been cited by other experts.

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502
-9-

Although we hold that the district court abused its discretion by not admitting

Dr. Wells' expert testimony, the error is nonetheless harmless because Larson still

cannot meet Helling's objective requirement of showing that he was exposed to

unreasonably high levels of ETS and that it poses a risk that, in the Supreme Court's

words, "is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate." 

III. Conclusion

We affirm the decision of the district court granting of summary judgment in

favor of Kempker.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2220 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/15/2005 Entry ID: 1928502