United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-4270

___________

James Earl Nelson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; John *

Byus, Administrator for Medical/ *

Dental Services; Marvin Evans, * Appeal from the United States

Warden, East Arkansas Regional * District Court for the Eastern

Unit, Arkansas Department of * District of Arkansas

Correction; Jimmy Banks, Assistant *

Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

John Lowe, Program Director, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 28, 2000

 Filed: January 10, 2001

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, 

Circuit Judges.

___________
1The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, 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

PER CURIAM.

James Earl Nelson, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the order of the District

Court1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting summary judgment to defendants

in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. Nelson, a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair,

claimed defendants--all prison officials--violated his rights by (1) confiscating his

shower wheelchair; (2) failing to develop and implement an exercise program with

proper equipment for his needs; and (3) maintaining a facility that was not compliant

with ADA regulations because it lacked shower safety devices, and its dining and

gaming tables, chapel, and recreation yard had accessibility problems. Nelson also

appeals the district court’s denial of leave to amend his complaint to add state

institutional defendants, a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, and a claim

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 

Upon de novo review, we conclude that Nelson did not provide evidence of

conduct that violated the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. See Seltzer-Bey v. Delo,

66 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; for conditions of confinement

to violate Eighth Amendment, inmate must show alleged deprivations denied him

minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, and defendants were deliberately

indifferent to excessive risk to his health or safety); Klinger v. Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d

727, 731 (8th Cir. 1994) (equal protection claim requires plaintiff to demonstrate he

was treated differently than others similarly situated), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1185

(1995). 

As to his ADA and RA claims, we conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Nelson leave to amend his complaint to add the institutional
3

defendants. See, e.g., Knapp v. Hanson, 183 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard

of review); see Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir. 1999)

(Congress’s attempt to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title II of ADA

was not proper exercise of its power under § 5 of Fourteenth Amendment), cert.

dismissed, 120 S. Ct. 1265 (2000); see also Debose v. Nebraska, 207 F.3d 1020, 1021

(8th Cir. 1999) (extending Alsbrook to Title I of ADA). But see Jim C v. United

States, No. 98-1830EA, 2000 WL 1868287, at *1 (8th Cir. Dec. 22, 2000) (en banc)

(holding § 504 is a valid exercise of Congress's spending power and that state had

waived its immunity with respect to § 504 suits by accepting federal funds). We further

conclude that Nelson could not premise a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim on alleged ADA and

RA violations, and that he lacks standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA. See

Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir. 2000); Alsbrook v. City of

Maumelle, 184 F.3d at 1010-11; Murphy v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir.

1997). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Nelson’s motion

to amend his complaint and appellate brief.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.