Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03154/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03154-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3154

___________

Donald Felix Winnett, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Saline County Jail; Hugh Gentry, Lt., *

Saline County Jail, originally sued as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Huge Gentry; Dru Reed, Sgt., Saline *

County Jail, originally sued only as *

Reed; Ray Pennington, Sgt., Saline *

County Jail, originally sued only as *

Pennington; Chad Westbrook, Jailer, *

Saline County Jail, originally sued only *

as Westbrook; Brandon Ford, Jailer, *

Saline County Jail originally sued only *

as Ford; Dan Sutterfield, Detective, *

Arresting Officer; John Doe, Arresting *

Officer, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2010 

Filed: April 26, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 09-3154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658201
1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

Donald Winnett filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and amended complaint

naming five employees of the Saline County Jail and two employees of the Saline

County Sheriff’s Office. The district court1

 granted summary judgment for

defendants, and Winnett appeals. Winnett has also filed a “Motion of Fraud and

Embezzlement and Commitment of Travesty of Justice.”

We reject Winnett’s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction when

it ruled on defendants’ summary judgment motion. Although Winnett had brought an

interlocutory appeal, that matter had been resolved and the mandate had been issued

without a stay. See Carlson v. Hyundai Motor Co., 222 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir.

2000) (issuance of mandate formally marks end of appellate jurisdiction; jurisdiction

returns to tribunal to which mandate is directed, for such proceedings as may be

appropriate); see also Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A) (procedure for moving to stay

mandate pending filing of petition for writ of certiorari in Supreme Court). 

Reviewing de novo, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.

2006), we conclude the grant of summary judgment was proper. As to all defendants,

the complaint should be interpreted as containing only official-capacity claims, see

Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2007) (if complaint is silent about

capacity in which defendant is sued, court interprets complaint as including only

official-capacity claims), and thus should be viewed as a suit only against Saline

County (County), see Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2010) (suit against

public official in official capacity is actually suit against entity for which official is

agent). Further, Winnett neither alleged nor presented evidence indicating that

defendants had acted pursuant to an official custom or policy of the County. See

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 & n.55 (1978) (plaintiff

seeking to impose § 1983 liability on local government body must show official

Appellate Case: 09-3154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658201
-3-

policy or widespread custom or practice of unconstitutional conduct that caused

deprivation of constitutional rights); Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1077 (8th

Cir. 1998) (this court can affirm district court’s summary judgment decision on any

basis supported by record).

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Winnett’s motion for recusal. See Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th

Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Winnett’s pending motion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3154 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2010 Entry ID: 3658201