Ronald L. White v. Iowa Prisons Indus. ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-2714
    ___________
    Ronald L. White,                       *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                               * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Iowa Prison Industries, (I.P.I.);      * Northern District of Iowa.
    Robert McGrew; C/O Ketman, sued        *
    as John Doe Ketman; John Doe,          *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: September 23, 1999
    Filed: October 1, 1999
    ___________
    Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Iowa inmate Ronald L. White appeals the district court&s1 dismissal of his 42
    U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice. Having carefully reviewed the record, we
    conclude dismissal was proper. To the extent White challenged a disciplinary
    conviction, he did not allege that the conviction had been invalidated or that he had
    exhausted available state remedies. See Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 480-81,
    1
    The HONORABLE EDWARD J. MCMANUS, United States District Judge
    for the Northern District of Iowa.
    487-88 (1994). To the extent White may have attempted to assert an Eighth
    Amendment violation for failure to protect him from assault by another inmate, his
    allegations were insufficient to state a claim. See Prater v. Dahm, 
    89 F.3d 538
    , 541-42
    (8th Cir. 1996) (prisoner did not allege Eighth Amendment violation where complaint
    alleged no facts from which inference could be made that prison officials actually knew
    of, and responded unreasonably to, substantial risk of serious harm from another
    inmate); Newman v. Holmes, 
    122 F.3d 650
    , 652 (8th Cir. 1997) (negligence is not
    enough to establish Eighth Amendment violation). The district court, upon its initial
    review, could properly dismiss the complaint without offering White an opportunity to
    amend. See Christiansen v. Clarke, 
    147 F.3d 655
    , 657-58 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    119 S. Ct. 554
    (1998). White&s remaining arguments are meritless.
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    -2-