Walter Smith v. Mark Lund ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-1959
    ___________
    Walter Andrew Smith,                 *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Mark Lund; Steve Jenkins; Shawn      * Southern District of Iowa.
    Howard; Shelly Barton; John Baldwin; *
    Forrest Alderman; Cheryl Lockwood; * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Jim Payne; Brad Richards,            *
    *
    Appellees.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 7, 2009
    Filed: May 12, 2009
    ___________
    Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Walter Smith appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint, in which he complained of conditions at Clarinda Correctional
    Facility where he was housed. During the pendency of this appeal, he was transferred
    to another institution. Therefore, Smith’s claims for injunctive relief are moot, see
    1
    The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    Smith v. Hundley, 
    190 F.3d 852
    , 855 (8th Cir. 1999), and he may not recover damages
    for Eighth Amendment violations because he did not allege harm to himself, see
    Berryhill v. Schriro, 
    137 F.3d 1073
    , 1076-77 (8th Cir. 1998); Phipps v. FDIC, 
    417 F.3d 1006
    , 1010 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, his claim of retaliatory discipline fails
    because it was imposed for an actual violation of prison rules. See Earnest v.
    Courtney, 
    64 F.3d 365
    , 367 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Finally, we agree with the
    district court that Smith may not bring the claims of other inmates, see Martin v.
    Sargent, 
    780 F.2d 1334
    , 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); we reject his argument that he should
    have been allowed to amend his complaint (a second time), because he did not seek
    leave to do so, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 
    512 F.3d 488
    , 497 (8th Cir. 2008);
    and we deny his pending motions.
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-