United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2875

___________

Brian Hughes, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

James Banks, Warden, North Central *

Unit, ADC; Darryl Golden, Assistant * [UNPUBLISHED]

Warden, North Central Unit, ADC; *

Curtis Meizner, Major, North Central *

Unit, ADC; Ronald Gillihan, Captain, *

North Central Unit, ADC; Eddie *

Selvey, Captain, North Central Unit, *

ADC; David Beaty, Lt., North Central *

Unit, ADC; Marvin Baird, Lt., North *

Central Unit, ADC; William Truax, *

Sft., North Central Unit, ADC; *

Stanley Robinson, Sft., North Central *

Unit, ADC; Diane Peppers, Sgt., North *

Central Unit, ADC; Chester Pool, Sft., *

North Central Unit, ADC; Patrick *

Miller, Sgt., North Central Unit, ADC; *

Ronald Klein, Corporal, North Central *

Unit, ADC; Edward Yarnell, Corporal, *

North Central Unit, ADC; C. E. *

Johnson, Corporal, North Central Unit, *

ADC; Sam Guiltner, Corporal, North *

Central Unit, ADC; Steven Gill, *

Corporal, North Central Unit, ADC; *

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, *

Chief Deputy Director, Arkansas *
-2-

Department of Correction; Larry May, *

Manager, North Central Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

_______________

Submitted: May 28, 2008

 Filed: September 3, 2008

_______________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Arkansas inmate Brian Hughes appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim, and has moved to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant Hughes’s motion to proceed

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

we affirm in part and reverse in part. 

In his complaint and attachments, Hughes claimed defendants violated his right

to substantive and procedural due process, equal protection, and free exercise of

religion, and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment. His claims were based on his allegations that, following a confrontation

with guards, he was issued a disciplinary report and placed on staff-precaution status,

under which he was required to kneel, face the wall, and place his hands behind his

back when guards delivered his meals. Each time he refused to comply with the staffprecaution procedure when the guards asked him to do so, he was not given a meal,

which caused him to miss meals during Ramadan.

 

The magistrate judge screened the complaint pursuant to section 1915A, and

recommended dismissing it for failure to state a claim. In particular, the magistrate

judge concluded that Hughes had not explained how staff-precaution status implicated

due process, and that being required to kneel, face the wall, and place his hands
1

Hughes’s objections reiterated assertions contained in attachments to his

complaint, including affidavits and grievance responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c)

(copy of written exhibit to pleading is part of pleading for all purposes); Meehan v.

United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2002) (court

may consider exhibits attached to complaint in determining if complaint states claim

for relief). 

-3-

behind his back for short periods of time did not amount to cruel and unusual

punishment. Hughes filed written objections, complaining that the magistrate judge

had not addressed all his claims. As relevant, he asserted that Caucasian and African

American inmates on staff-precaution status were treated differently: a Caucasian

inmate received meals in his cell regardless of his compliance with the staffprecaution requirements, and if he missed three consecutive meals, he was advised of

the hunger-strike policy and dangers to his health from not eating and was medically

monitored, whereas when Hughes (who is African American) did not comply with the

staff-precaution requirements, he received no meal, and when he missed three

consecutive meals he was not advised of the hunger-strike policy or dangers to his

health and he was not medically monitored.1

 The district court adopted the

magistrate’s report in its entirety. 

We find that the due process and free exercise claims were properly dismissed.

See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints are to be

liberally construed, but they must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced);

Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of

§ 1915A dismissal). However, we conclude that because Hughes’s objections

reframed the bases for his Eighth Amendment and equal protection claims, they

should have been treated as a motion for leave to amend the complaint. See Thornton

v. Phillips County, Ark., 240 F.3d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 
-4-

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the due process and free exercise

claims, and we remand to the district court to consider the motion for leave to amend,

and to allow defendants to respond to the motion. 

______________________________