Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04072/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04072-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4072

___________

Lautha Anderson, Sr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Missouri Department of Corrections; *

State of Missouri; Correctional Medical * [UNPUBLISHED]

Services; D. Bellkw; Mike Kemna; *

Rhonda Almanza; Mathews; Newkirk; *

Central Office Legal Department; E. *

Conley, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2005

Filed: November 2, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Lautha Anderson appeals the district court’s preservice

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Anderson

alleged that the Missouri Department of Corrections, the State of Missouri,

Correctional Medical Services, “Mrs. Bellkw,” Crossroads Correctional Center

(CrCC) Superintendent Mike Kemna, R.N. Rhonda Almanza, CrCC Dr. Mathews,

Appellate Case: 04-4072 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970226
-2-

CrCC Dr. Newkirk, Central Office Legal Department, Regional Director Mr. E.

Conley, CrCC “Nurse Sue,” and CrCC Dr. Kuruvilla were deliberately indifferent to

his serious medical needs.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude preservice dismissal was

inappropriate as to Drs. Mathews, Newkirk, and Kuruvilla, and Nurse Sue. Liberally

construing the complaint, Anderson might prove facts demonstrating that each of

these defendants was deliberately indifferent to Anderson’s serious medical needs.

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se complaint must

be liberally construed); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (complaint fails

to state claim if it appears beyond doubt plaintiff can prove no facts entitling him to

relief); Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard for

deliberate-indifference claim). We therefore remand so those defendants may be

served and the claims against them may be further developed.

The judgment is affirmed as to the remaining defendants, however, because

either they are not subject to suit under section 1983, or Anderson failed to allege

how they personally were involved in the deprivation of his rights.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4072 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970226