1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1960

___________

Stanley Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri

Vince Vaughn; Cal Hall; John Szuba; *

Lt. Willis; C.O. Jett; C.O. Walker; C.O. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jackson; Nurse Watson; Lt. Meacham; *

Lt. Morgan; C.O. Cruise; C.O. *

Clemmons, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 6, 2001

 Filed: April 1, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Stanley Johnson appeals from the final judgment entered in

the District Court1

 for the Eastern District of Missouri after a jury trial in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he claimed that defendants--twelve employees of the
-2-

St. Louis County Jail--used excessive force in restraining him and were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs and to conditions that were cruel and unusual

and posed a health risk. The jury found for Johnson and awarded nominal damages

against defendant Superintendent Vince Vaughn on the health-risk count, and

otherwise found for defendants. For reversal, Johnson argues the jury’s verdicts for

defendants were not supported by the evidence and the damages award was

insufficient. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. 

Because Johnson did not move for judgment as a matter of law or for a new

trial after the jury delivered its verdicts and awarded damages, we review Johnson’s

challenges for plain error only. See Loehr v. Walton, 242 F.3d 834, 837 (8th Cir.

2001) (damages award); Williams v. City of Kansas City, 223 F.3d 749, 752-53 (8th

Cir. 2000) (jury verdict). We find none. 

The jurors could have concluded that defendants did not use excessive force

in restraining Johnson to his bunk, given defendant Lieutenant Henry Willis’s

testimony that he did not hit Johnson and defendant Corrections Officer Paul Jett’s

testimony that the officers used minimal force to restrain the aggressive Johnson. See

Morse v. Southern Union Co., 174 F.3d 917, 922-23 (8th Cir. 1999) (on appeal from

jury verdict, this court’s review does not include assessment of credibility of

witnesses). The jurors also could have concluded that defendants were not

deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s serious medical needs, because the medical

records showed that he received treatment on his injured hand the day after it was

caught in the cell door and that nurses routinely checked and loosened his restraints.

Cf. Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir. 1997) (prison doctors were not

deliberately indifferent because they treated prisoner on numerous occasions and

offered him sensible medication and treatment). As to the health-risk count, the

jurors could have concluded that Superintendent Vaughn, who admittedly gave the

orders to have Johnson restrained, was the only culpable defendant. See Seltzer-Bey
-3-

v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 1995) (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). 

As for the damages award, we conclude that the award was not a plain

injustice. See Sanders v. Brewer, 972 F.2d 920, 921-23 (8th Cir. 1992) ($1

compensatory damage award to inmate who was beaten by other inmates and suffered

broken jaw was troubling but not plain injustice). 

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Johnson’s pending motion. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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