Joseph N. Beck v. Charles Schwartz, Industries Supervisor I

992 F.2d 870, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10894, 1993 WL 149059
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 12, 1993
Docket93-1650
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 992 F.2d 870 (Joseph N. Beck v. Charles Schwartz, Industries Supervisor I) 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
Joseph N. Beck v. Charles Schwartz, Industries Supervisor I, 992 F.2d 870, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10894, 1993 WL 149059 (8th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, appellant raised the issue of qualified immunity. Although entitled to a ruling on this issue, the district court overruled appellant’s motion for summary judgment without reference to this defense. This was error.

We remand this matter to the district court for a decision as to whether appellant is entitled to qualified immunity. The district court is also directed to consider, as required by Siegert v. Gilley, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), the concomitant question of whether the complainant “has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all.” Id., — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. at 1793.

Although Siegert deals with a claim arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), rather than 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the “analytical structure under which a claim of qualified immunity should be addressed,” Siegert, — U.S. at —, 111 S.Ct. at 1793, is the same. A section 1983 claim may encompass both the Constitution “and laws” of the United States. However, Beck asserts only an Eighth Amendment violation. His claim of breach of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act is a predicate to the establishment of a purportedly dangerous condition, to which he was allegedly exposed through the deliberate indifference of Schwartz. Our holding in Bibbs v. Armontrout, 943 F.2d 26 (8th Cir.1991) should be considered by the district court in further analysis of Beck’s supposed cause of action.

We will retain jurisdiction. The district court shall consider the matters referred to in this opinion and certify the results to this court within ninety (90) days.

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

Related

Mountain Pure v. Cynthia Roberts
814 F.3d 928 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Forbes v. Township of Lower Merion
313 F.3d 144 (Third Circuit, 2002)
Thelma Hall v. Ron Hopkins
Eighth Circuit, 2000
R. Scott Sexton v. Ronald Martin
210 F.3d 905 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)
Jones v. Clinton
858 F. Supp. 902 (E.D. Arkansas, 1994)
Scarpino v. Grosshiem
852 F. Supp. 798 (S.D. Iowa, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
992 F.2d 870, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10894, 1993 WL 149059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-n-beck-v-charles-schwartz-industries-supervisor-i-ca8-1993.