Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02024/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald L. Crump
Appellee
David P. Leonard
Appellant
Unknown McKee
Appellee
Tanya S. Muhm
Appellee
Alan Stahls
Appellee
Christine R. Sullivan
Not Party

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2024

___________

David P. Leonard, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Tanya S. Muhm, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee, *

*

Christine R. Sullivan, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Donald L. Crump; Alan Stahls; *

Unknown McKee *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 19, 2006

Filed: May 22, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-2024 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047169
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

2

Leonard also complains that the district court refused to accept his pro se postjudgment motion, because he was represented by counsel. We lack jurisdiction to

review this claim because Leonard did not appeal this decision. See Brode v. Cohn,

966 F.2d 1237, 1240 (8th Cir. 1992).

-2-

Missouri inmate David P. Leonard appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of

some claims, and its grant of summary judgment on the remaining claims, in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action.

The district court did not err by dismissing the claims for damages against

defendants Donald L. Crump and Tanya S. Muhm as barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994), although the dismissal should have been without prejudice. See

Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of

review); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Heck-barred

§ 1983 action should be dismissed without prejudice). We also agree with the district

court that Leonard failed to produce evidence from which a jury could conclude that

defendants Alan Stahl and Michael McKee knew of and were deliberately indifferent

to a substantial risk of serious injury to Leonard, and thus summary judgment was

properly granted to these defendants. See Crow v. Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601-

02 (8th Cir. 2005) (discussing failure-to-protect claim involving pretrial detainee);

Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard

of review). As to Leonard’s claim that his appointed counsel provided ineffective

assistance, this is not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541

(8th Cir. 1988).2

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify the dismissal of the

claims against Muhm and Crump to be without prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2024 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2006 Entry ID: 2047169