Johnny Paul Dodson v. Larry Norris

168 F. App'x 141
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 22, 2006
Docket04-3724
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 168 F. App'x 141 (Johnny Paul Dodson v. Larry Norris) 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
Johnny Paul Dodson v. Larry Norris, 168 F. App'x 141 (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Johnny Dodson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust and the court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel.

We conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Dodson’s complaint against the prison officials for failure to exhaust, as the record does not show Dodson filed any grievances about his claims against defendants Melody Barnett, Randall Manus, Gaylon Lay, Ray Hobbs, and Larry Norris. See Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (prisoner must exhaust all available administrative remedies before § 1983 action can be brought with respect to prison conditions; when multiple prison claims are joined, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires exhaustion as to all claims).

As for the claims against defendant Susan Newbery, in her capacity as Criminal Justice Coordinator for the Arkansas Supreme Court, the district court properly dismissed the claim for monetary damages with prejudice due to immunity, as Newbery was clearly acting in her official capacity. See Morstad v. Dept. of Corrs. and *142 Rehab., 147 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir.1998). Although Newbery was not immune from Dodson’s requested injunctive relief, see Campbell v. Ark. Dept. of Corr., 155 F.3d 950, 962 (8th Cir.1998), injunctive relief would be inappropriate, because Dodson failed to show, among other things, that he was faced with a threat of irreparable harm, see Davis v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist., 104 F.3d 204, 205-06 (8th Cir.1997).

Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for appointment of counsel. See Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 930, 112 S.Ct. 1995, 118 L.Ed.2d 591 (1992). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Related

Malik Abdul-Muhammad v. Gary Kempker
450 F.3d 350 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)
Abdul-Muhammad v. Kempker
450 F.3d 350 (Eighth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 F. App'x 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-paul-dodson-v-larry-norris-ca8-2006.