James Wright, Jr. v. Shelton

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3270

___________________________

James Adam Wright, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Shelton, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

____________

Submitted: February 4, 2022 Filed: February 9, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate James Wright, Jr. appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims that defendants used excessive force against him. We affirm the grant of summary judgment. See Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., 680 F.3d 1046, 1051 (8th Cir. 2012). We agree with the district court that Wright could not pursue a claim for damages against defendants in their official capacities, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Serna v. Goodno, 567 F.3d 944, 952 (8th Cir. 2009); Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 593-94 (8th Cir. 2007); and that the record does not show that Officer Cotton used excessive force, see Burgess v. Moore, 39 F.3d 216, 218 (8th Cir. 1994). Regarding the individual-capacity claim against Officer Shelton, the district court correctly applied the appropriate legal standard in concluding that Officer Shelton used force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, rather than maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). We conclude that, at most, the record establishes that this incident amounted to an error in judgment as to how much force was required to maintain control of a recalcitrant inmate with an admitted history of disciplinary violations for using force against other officers. See Jackson v. Gutzmer, 866 F.3d 969, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2017).

We also conclude that the court did not err in granting summary judgment before ruling on Wright’s discovery motions. See Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 810 (8th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.