Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03381/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Shane Cantrell
Appellant
Davis
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Kim Luckett
Appellee
Larry Norris
Appellee
M. D. Reed
Appellee
Crystal Woods
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3381

___________

Jimmy Shane Cantrell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

M. D. Reed, Warden, Cummins Unit, *

ADC; Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Department of Correction; Kim * 

Luckett, Assistant Warden, Cummins *

Unit, ADC; Crystal Woods, *

Classification Officer, Cummins Unit, *

ADC; Davis, Captain, Cummins Unit, *

ADC; John Does, Officer, Cummins *

Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 5, 2007

Filed: December 7, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Shane Cantrell appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal as premature.

Appellate Case: 06-3381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2007 Entry ID: 3380052
-2-

Cantrell’s complaint alleged that defendants failed to protect him from an

inmate attack, placed him at risk for another attack, and failed to adopt adequate

prison policy and to adequately train staff regarding the housing of protective custody

and violent inmates. His claims arose out of an attack that ensued after inmate

Richard Dolan was placed in the same cell with Cantrell. The district court granted

summary judgment to the four served defendants--Larry Norris, M.D. Reed, Kim

Luckett, and Crystal Woods--concluding that Cantrell did not show they personally

knew of his cell assignment or expected the attack. The court’s order, however, did

not address or dispose of Cantrell’s claim that defendant Officer Doe personally

placed Dolan in Cantrell’s cell.

Although Cantrell’s complaint had not identified Officer Doe by name, his

complaint allegations were specific enough to allow Doe to be identified through

discovery. See Estate of Rosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th

Cir. 1995) (action may proceed against party whose name is unknown if complaint

makes allegations specific enough to permit identity of party to be ascertained after

reasonable discovery); Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir. 1985) (dismissal

is proper only when it appears true identity of defendant cannot be learned through

discovery or court’s intervention). Moreover, at the time the district court purported

to dismiss the complaint, Cantrell had pending a motion to substitute Sergeant Oates

for Officer Doe, and also to substitute J.M. Davis for defendant “Captain Davis.” The

district court never addressed Cantrell’s motion.

We further note that the district court’s order did not specifically address

Cantrell’s claim that the remaining defendants were liable because they failed to

establish policies or train staff in a way that would have prevented Dolan, a punitive

status inmate, from being placed in the same cell with Cantrell, a protective custody

inmate. See Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001) (prison supervisor’s

liability arises if failure to train or to properly supervise offending employee caused

deprivation of constitutional rights and supervisor had notice that training procedures

Appellate Case: 06-3381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2007 Entry ID: 3380052
-3-

and supervision were inadequate and likely to result in constitutional violation); cf.

Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978) (local

government may be held liable for injury inflicted by its employees if injury resulted

from execution of policy).

Accordingly, we conclude that there is no final appealable order, and we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals

shall have jurisdiction over appeals from all final decisions of district courts); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b) (“any order or other form of decision, however designated,” that

disposes of fewer than all claims or all parties does not terminate action as to any

claim or party); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522-23 (8th Cir. 1991) (federal

court will raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte when it appears jurisdiction is lacking).

On remand, the district court should (1) address Cantrell’s motion to amend his

complaint to substitute Sergeant Oates for Doe and J.M. Davis for Captain Davis, and

if the motion is granted, give Cantrell 120 days to serve these defendants, see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m) (allowing 120 days for service on defendants); cf. Carmona v. Ross, 376

F.3d 829, 830 (8th Cir. 2004) (reversing and remanding dismissal under Rule 4(m),

because district court did not allow plaintiff 120 days from date of amended complaint

to serve newly added defendants); and (2) address the inadequate-policy and failureto-train claims. We deny Cantrell’s motion on appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3381 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/07/2007 Entry ID: 3380052