Harold Latin v. Danny Martin ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 20-1837
    ___________________________
    Harold D. Latin
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Sheriff Danny Martin, Nevada County, Arkansas, et al.
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana
    ____________
    Submitted: December 21, 2020
    Filed: December 29, 2020
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Harold Latin appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
    in his pro se section 1983 action. As an initial matter, we do not consider the new
    facts, claims, and arguments that Latin raises on appeal, including in his reply brief.
    See Combs v. Cordish Cos., 
    862 F.3d 671
    , 678 n.9 (8th Cir. 2017). Having reviewed
    de novo, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment to
    defendants. As to the conditions-of-confinement claim relating to an alleged water
    leak in his cell while Latin was a pretrial detainee, we conclude that Latin failed to
    present evidence showing that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to a
    substantial risk of serious harm; “mere negligence or inadvertence does not rise to the
    level of deliberate indifference.” Kulkay v. Roy, 
    847 F.3d 637
    , 643 (8th Cir. 2017).
    Latin’s medical deliberate-indifference claim failed for the reasons the district court
    explained. See Johnson v. Leonard, 
    929 F.3d 569
    , 575-76 (8th Cir. 2019). The
    district court properly dismissed the official-capacity claims; Latin failed to
    demonstrate any constitutional violation. See Whitney v. City of St. Louis, 
    887 F.3d 857
    , 860-61 (8th Cir. 2018). Finally, we agree that Latin’s claims for injunctive relief
    became moot upon his transfer to another facility. See Smith v. Hundley, 
    190 F.3d 852
    , 855 (8th Cir. 1999).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Latin’s
    pending motions for the appointment of appellate counsel. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
    of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1837

Filed Date: 12/29/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/29/2020