Donald D. Dockery v. Bob Houston , 229 F. App'x 428 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-1873
    ___________
    Donald J. Dockery,                    *
    *
    Appellant,               * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                               * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Bob Houston; Patricia Ryan; Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Bennett, Officer; Juanita Brown,      *
    *
    Appellees.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: April 19, 2007
    Filed: May 3, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Pretrial detainee Donald J. Dockery appeals the district court’s1 orders
    dismissing one defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and
    granting summary judgment to the remaining defendants, in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Alberson v. Norris, 
    458 F.3d 762
    ,
    765 (8th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard of review); Atkinson v. Bohn, 
    91 F.3d 1127
    , 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review),
    1
    The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
    District of Nebraska.
    we affirm. Assuming that Dockery intended to bring both official-capacity and
    individual-capacity claims, we conclude that the jail policy at issue in this case was
    not unconstitutional because it required correctional officers to notify the medical
    department of any request by an inmate for emergency medical care; and we find no
    support in the record for any unconstitutional custom. See Grayson v. Ross, 
    454 F.3d 802
    , 810-11 (8th Cir. 2006) (official-capacity liability under § 1983). We also find
    no basis for individual liability: Dockery cannot sue for allegedly false statements in
    a grievance response, see Buckley v. Barlow, 
    997 F.2d 494
    , 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per
    curiam) (prison grievance procedure does not confer substantive rights actionable
    under § 1983), and there is no evidence suggesting that any named defendant was
    personally involved in knowingly disregarding Dockery’s serious medical needs, see
    Hughes v. Stottlemyre, 
    454 F.3d 791
    , 798 (8th Cir. 2006) (no respondeat superior
    liability under § 1983); Vaughn v. Greene County, 
    438 F.3d 845
    , 850 (8th Cir. 2006)
    (to show defendants were deliberately indifferent to pretrial detainee’s serious medical
    needs, it must be shown that they disregarded known risk to his health).
    To the extent that Dockery sought to assert a constitutional claim based on his
    post-hospitalization lockdown, we find that the lockdown did not constitute deliberate
    indifference, see 
    id.,
     or violate his due process rights, cf. Wilkinson v. Austin, 
    545 U.S. 209
    , 222-23 (2005) (noting that there is no protected liberty interest against 30-
    day assignment to segregation). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial
    of appointed counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 
    437 F.3d 791
    , 794 (8th Cir.
    2006) (standard of review; relevant criteria).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-