Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03535/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03535-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3535

___________

Eddie Risdal, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

*

Louis Galloway; David Tadman; Walter * [UNPUBLISHED]

Kautzky, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2004

Filed: June 9, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Eddie Risdal appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the

record, see Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 332-33 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review),

we agree with the district court that Risdal failed to create any trialworthy issues

Appellate Case: 03-3535 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2004 Entry ID: 1775539 
-2-

regarding his failure-to-protect claim, see Smith v. Gray, 259 F.3d 933, 934 (8th Cir.

2001) (per curiam) (prison official’s failure to alleviate significant risk that should

have been, but was not, perceived cannot be infliction of punishment); Moody v. St.

Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (to defeat summary judgment,

party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would

allow finding in party’s favor on more than just speculation); and that he failed to

state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We also

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Risdal’s motion

to compel, see In re Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir. 1997) (scope

of review of discovery orders is narrow and deferential); in placing defendant

Galloway’s affidavit and its attachments under seal, cf. Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v.

Fisher Foods, Inc., 823 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1987) (request to lift or modify order

sealing documents is left to sound discretion of trial court); or in denying appointed

counsel, see Edgington v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)

(standard of review; discussing factors). Finally, we reject Risdal’s contentions

concerning judicial bias, as adverse rulings alone are not grounds for bias or partiality

motions. See Lefkowitz v. City-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999). 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3535 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2004 Entry ID: 1775539