United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1876

___________

Henry Rollie, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Curtis Stewart; Demetrius Herndon; *

Mark Harris-El; Carl Turner; James *

Howard; Russell Rhone; Preston Leroy *

Smith; Kenneth D. Outley; Richard *

Scott; Joseph Garner; Deshawn *

Johnson; Stanford Morris; Damon *

Caine; Brian Bohle; Rocky LaChance; *

Felix D. Smith; Walter Eden; Jimmey *

Holly; Byron Webster; Anthony Lyles; *

Earl Thomas; David Bradley, *

*

Plaintiffs, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Michael Kemna; Jean Ann Johnson; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Brewer; Clarence Denzer; Daniel *

Greene; Steve Lakey; Lora Carr; *

Alysia Dale; Gary Grant; Michael G. *

Short; Daniel Tolle; Rebecca Holt; *

Marilyn Love; Jean Yount; Kevin *

McGinley; Tom Clements; George *

Lombardi; Gary Kempker, *

*

Appellees. *
1

Gary Kempker, George A. Lombardi, Tom Clements, Michael Kemna, Jean

Ann Johnson, Clarence Denzer, Steve Brewer, Steve Lakey, Daniel Greene, Lora

Carr, Gary Grant, Michael Short, Daniel Tolle, and Kevin McGinley.

-2-

___________

Submitted: December 21, 2004

Filed: February 25, 2005 (corrected 3/1/05)

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Henry Rollie, an inmate of the Missouri Department of Correctional Services

incarcerated in the Crossroads Correctional Center (CRCC), appeals following the

district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint. We reverse and remand.

I.

In August 2002, Henry Rollie and twenty-two other prisoners filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief against eighteen named

defendants, mostly prison officials. As relevant, plaintiffs alleged that while they

were being held in the segregation unit, fourteen defendants1

 permitted “disciplinary

double celling” of maximum security prisoners with other prisoners: no distinction

was made among those in temporary administrative segregation, disciplinary

segregation, and administrative segregation (AS). This double-celling subjected

prisoners to assaults, rapes, and fights, all of which went undetected due to the use

of “solid and soundproof boxcar doors.” The fourteen defendants at issue, “through

functionaries,” knew double-celling in the segregation unit caused fights, assaults,

and rapes, and they falsified temporary AS confinement forms to cover up the
-3-

unauthorized double-celling. Plaintiffs made further allegations regarding use of law

clerks, problems with hygiene and time allowed for recreation, and interference with

prison mail. 

Rollie in particular sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against doublecelling and the use of boxcar doors, and class certification for all current prisoners

who had been in segregation. The district court granted provisional in forma pauperis

(IFP) status but dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Rollie moved for reconsideration of class certification and

a TRO, and filed an amended complaint. In the complaint, Rollie indicated

defendants were being sued only in their official capacities, except for Daniel Greene,

Steve Lakey, Gary Grant, Michael Short, Daniel Tolle, and Clarence Denzer, who

were also being sued in their individual capacities. Rollie also alleged that after he

complained about double-celling, Denzer retaliated by extending Rollie’s sentence

in solitary confinement from six months to one year, and Tolle, Grant, and Short

retaliated by issuing conduct-violation reports against Rollie. Rollie claimed he had

exhausted his administrative remedies. 

The district court reopened the case, agreeing that Rollie had exhausted

administrative remedies, and granted leave to file the amended complaint. Thirteen

defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or for

judgment on the pleadings, and opposed the motions for class certification and a

TRO. In an affidavit accompanying defendants’ opposition to a TRO, Michael

Kemna attested that inmates assigned to CRCC are violent offenders who have been

unable to adjust to prison discipline in other institutions, or are recidivists with

sentences of two years or longer; and inmates in AS are more restricted than those in

general population. In one of the AS housing units, two inmates are assigned to each

cell, and the cells are solid-walled with a solid steel door, which has a food passage

and an observation window. In opposition to class certification, defendants argued

Rollie had failed to allege that a large number of inmates had complaints about prison
-4-

conditions and that relief could not be sought on an individual basis, and had failed

to show that there was an issue common to all inmates, that the issues presented were

typical of the claims of the class, and that he was an adequate class representative. 

The district court denied Rollie’s motions for reconsideration of class

certification and a TRO and severed and dismissed the thirteen defendants who had

moved for dismissal. The court concluded Rollie had failed to state an Eighth

Amendment violation because he had not alleged serious deprivations of “light, heat,

ventilation, sanitation, clothing [or] a proper diet,” or that defendants intended to

deliberately disregard his health and safety. Further, Rollie did not allege any

instance where defendants failed to protect him, individually; and he was not denied

access to the courts as he had successfully filed numerous complaints such as the

instant one. The court did not address Rollie’s retaliation claims.

The remaining five defendants moved to dismiss, and Rollie moved for leave

to file a second amended complaint. Rollie also moved to recuse the district court

judge on the basis that the judge did not understand his claims. The district court

denied Rollie’s motion to amend because the five remaining defendants had already

filed answers, Rollie had not provided any “new evidence” or shown that the

proposed new defendants committed a constitutional violation, and he had simply

incorporated paragraphs from his earlier amended complaint without adding new

information. The court then dismissed the remaining defendants, and dismissed the

case with prejudice, for the reasons stated in its earlier dismissal order. Rollie moved

for reconsideration, essentially arguing that the court did not give him adequate

opportunity to develop the record, but the court denied his motion as out of time and

as lacking a sufficient basis for reconsideration. 
2

Rollie is the only plaintiff involved with this appeal.

-5-

II.

Rollie2

 timely appeals “all orders denying motions” and “all orders of

dismissal.” We grant Rollie IFP status, leaving the collection details to the district

court. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

Initially, we find that Rollie may seek damages only from Greene, Lakey,

Grant, Short, Tolle, and Denzer, because these are the only defendants against whom

he brought individual-capacity claims, but he may proceed against all defendants for

injunctive relief. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73 (1996) (suits

brought under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), against state officials may

proceed notwithstanding Eleventh Amendment where plaintiffs seek prospective

injunctive relief to end continuing federal law violations); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d

429, 433 n.3 (8th Cir. 1989) (suits seeking damages from state officials in their

individual capacities are not barred by Eleventh Amendment). 

We conclude that Rollie stated a failure-to-protect claim, see Springdale Educ.

Ass’n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998) (Rule 12(b)(6)

dismissals are reviewed de novo), as he alleged defendants knew of the assaults

caused by double-celling yet did nothing, and even falsified reports to cover up

unauthorized double-celling, see Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir. 2004)

(per curiam) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, inmates must

show they are incarcerated under conditions posing substantial risk of serious harm

and prison officials subjectively knew of and disregarded that safety risk); Hott v.

Hennepin County, 260 F.3d 901, 906 (8th Cir. 2001) (for purposes of failure-toprotect claims, it does not matter whether prisoner faces excessive risk of attack for

reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation face such risk); cf.

Jensen v. Clarke, 73 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir. 1996) (remanding so district court could
-6-

assess whether prison officials subjectively knew double-celling posed substantial

risk of harm to prisoners’ safety); see also Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 724 (8th

Cir. 2004) (factfinder may assess punitive damages in § 1983 action when

defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it

involves reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights of others).

Because we are remanding on this claim, the district court should reconsider Rollie’s

request for a TRO. 

We also conclude that Rollie stated a retaliation claim against Denzer, Tolle,

Grant, and Short (sued in both their individual and official capacities), as Rollie

alleged that these defendants took retaliatory measures against him after he

complained about double-celling. See Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1206

(8th Cir. 1990) (act in retaliation for exercising constitutionally protected right is

actionable under § 1983 even if act, when taken for another reason, would have been

proper); cf. Burgess v. Moore, 39 F.3d 216, 218 (8th Cir. 1994) (threat of retaliation

is sufficient injury if made in retaliation for inmate’s use of prison grievance

procedure). 

We conclude, however, that the district court did not err in dismissing Rollie’s

remaining claims; that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rollie’s

requests for class certification, for leave to file a second amended complaint, and for

reconsideration; and that Rollie’s disagreement with the court’s interpretation of his

claims was not a proper basis for recusal. Cf. Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc.,

146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir. 1998) (recusal motion was properly denied where it

was based on nothing more than previous adverse rulings), cert. denied, 525 U.S.

1154 (1999).

We note that defendants Alysia Dale, Rebecca Holt, Marilyn Love, and Jean

Yount are not mentioned in reference to the retaliation or failure-to-protect claims.
-7-

Thus, as to these defendants, the judgment is affirmed. As to all other defendants, we

vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________