United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1064

___________

Daniel Cincoski, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Richard, Dr., Grimes Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Daniels, Dr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

Grimes Unit, ADC; Cash, Mrs., *

Mental Health, Grimes Unit, ADC; *

Rogers, Mr., Mental Health, Grimes *

Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 2011

Filed: June 9, 2011

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Daniel Cincoski appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice following an evidentiary hearing. We grant

Cincoski leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and we affirm in part and

reverse in part.
-2-

Cincoski, an inmate formerly housed at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas

Department of Correction (ADC), filed a complaint against Correctional Medical

Services psychiatrist Dr. Shawn Richard, ADC psychologist Dr. June Daniels, and

ADC mental health advisors Lisa Cash and Alan Rogers. In his amended complaint,

Cincoski alleged that defendants failed to provide him proper mental-health care,

which violated his Eighth Amendment rights, and which led to disciplinary

convictions that resulted in the denial of parole eligibility and violated his due process

rights. Cincoski also alleged that he was placed on suicide watch where the conditions

of confinement were unconstitutional, as there was a camera in his cell; he was denied

medication, shoes, clothes, underwear, or blankets; his cell was flooded and freezing;

and he was fed gruel. Further, a non-defendant ADC employee strapped him tightly

in a restraint chair and asphyxiated him; the denial of personal hygiene items caused

him to develop canker sores, bleeding, and extreme pain for which medication was

denied; and at some point the water in his cell was turned completely off. He

requested damages and other relief, and a jury trial.

The district court dismissed the complaint following a pretrial evidentiary

hearing held by the magistrate judge, finding that the relief sought would necessarily

imply the invalidity of Cincoski’s disciplinary convictions, and his claims were thus

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We affirm the dismissal without

prejudice of the claims in which Cincoski sought restoration of good-time credits he

lost because of his disciplinary convictions, or declaratory relief or damages based on

those convictions. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 643, 648 (1997) (§ 1983

action for damages and declaratory relief based on prison disciplinary proceedings

resulting in loss of good-time credit is barred if success would imply invalidity of

punishment imposed); Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2002)

(under Heck, § 1983 action seeking damages for prison discipline that resulted in loss

of good-time credits does not arise until inmate has successfully challenged discipline

through habeas or some other proceeding).
-3-

We also conclude, however, that Cincoski presented claims under the Eighth

Amendment in which he did not challenge the disciplinary proceedings, and these

claims were not barred by Heck. Specifically, Cincoski claimed in his amended

complaint that the denial of his requested medication was in itself unconstitutional;

that the conditions of confinement during suicide watch were unconstitutional; that

the denial of personal hygiene items led to extreme pain, for which medication was

denied; and that at some point he had no access to water in his cell. He provided

further details of these claims in additional filings, and attempted to expand on the

claims at the pretrial evidentiary hearing. Although defendants moved for summary

judgment on Cincoski’s claim that he was denied adequate medical care, they did not

respond to the allegations about the allegedly unconstitutional conditions. We express

no opinion as to whether summary judgment might be warranted on any of these

claims, but we note that a case resolved through summary judgment does not count

as a strike. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (prior case counts as strike if it was dismissed as

frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim).

We grant Cincoski leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirm in part and

reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________