James G. Ellingburg v. Johnny King and Kenneth Taylor

Eighth Circuit

James G. Ellingburg v. Johnny King and Kenneth Taylor

490 F.2d 1270, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10463

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 1974

Docket73-1838

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 490 F.2d 1270 (James G. Ellingburg v. Johnny King and Kenneth Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James G. Ellingburg v. Johnny King and Kenneth Taylor, 490 F.2d 1270, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10463 (8th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ class action complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim. Appellants, inmates of the Arkansas Department of Correction, basically complain of the actions of a prison employee, Utility Sergeant Kenneth Taylor, who they feel acts unfairly toward them. Specifically, they allege:

1. That Sergeant Taylor threatened them with job demotions unless they became informers.

2. That inmate Ellingburg was deprived of needed medical care.

3. That inmate Ellingburg was intimidated by prison officials because the officials discussed with him the large number of writs he filed and denied him essential medical care in revenge.

4. That inmate Higgins was placed in punitive segregation because he attempted to explain to Sergeant Taylor certain actions which had resulted in a disciplinary report being filed against him.

5. That Sergeant Taylor confiscated personal property of inmates during searches.

The district court referred the case to a magistrate for screening. The magistrate went to the prison and interviewed the persons involved and then submitted a full report to the district court. Upon receipt of the report, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaint because it failed to state a claim, and because even if the complaint were sufficiently factually specific, none of the plaintiffs’ allegations rose to federal constitutional dignity.

We affirm on the basis of the district court’s order. Broad and conelusory statements unsupported by factual allegations are not sufficient to support a cause of action under § 1983. Howard v. Swenson, 426 F.2d 277 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 255, 27 L.Ed.2d 254 (1970); Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14 (3d Cir. 1971); Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1970); Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F. 2d 449 (2d Cir. 1969). In addition, none of appellants’ allegations as stated rises to federal constitutional dignity.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ class action complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim. Appellants, inmates of the Arkansas Department of Correction, basically complain of the actions of a prison employee, Utility Sergeant Kenneth Taylor, who they feel acts unfairly toward them. Specifically, they allege:

1. That Sergeant Taylor threatened them with job demotions unless they became informers.

2. That inmate Ellingburg was deprived of needed medical care.

3. That inmate Ellingburg was intimidated by prison officials because the officials discussed with him the large number of writs he filed and denied him essential medical care in revenge.

4. That inmate Higgins was placed in punitive segregation because he attempted to explain to Sergeant Taylor certain actions which had resulted in a disciplinary report being filed against him.

5. That Sergeant Taylor confiscated personal property of inmates during searches.

The district court referred the case to a magistrate for screening. The magistrate went to the prison and interviewed the persons involved and then submitted a full report to the district court. Upon receipt of the report, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaint because it failed to state a claim, and because even if the complaint were sufficiently factually specific, none of the plaintiffs’ allegations rose to federal constitutional dignity.

We affirm on the basis of the district court’s order. Broad and conelusory statements unsupported by factual allegations are not sufficient to support a cause of action under § 1983. Howard v. Swenson, 426 F.2d 277 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 255, 27 L.Ed.2d 254 (1970); Fletcher v. Hook, 446 F.2d 14 (3d Cir. 1971); Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (3d Cir. 1970); Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F. 2d 449 (2d Cir. 1969). In addition, none of appellants’ allegations as stated rises to federal constitutional dignity.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 F.2d 1270, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-g-ellingburg-v-johnny-king-and-kenneth-taylor-ca8-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack