Leslie John Johnson v. Douglas Weber

Eighth Circuit

Leslie John Johnson v. Douglas Weber

549 F. App'x 597

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 2014

Docket13-2331

StatusUnpublished

This text of 549 F. App'x 597 (Leslie John Johnson v. Douglas Weber) 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

Leslie John Johnson v. Douglas Weber, 549 F. App'x 597 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, South Dakota inmate Leslie Johnson appeals the district court’s dismissal based upon the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Upon careful review, we affirm the dismissal, but not based on the Younger abstention doctrine. See Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 584, 591, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013) (clarifying limited applicability of Younger abstention doctrine). Instead, we affirm the dismissal on the ground that Johnson failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (dismissal is warranted at any time in in forma pauperis proceedings if action fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (court shall review complaint in civil action in which prisoner seeks redress from governmental entity, officer, or employee, and court shall dismiss complaint if it, inter alia, fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted); Spiritas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir.2013) (dismissal may be affirmed on any basis supported in record).

The only claim potentially asserted in Johnson’s complaint was a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His allegations, however, were insufficient to state such a claim. See Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914-15 (8th Cir.2011) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim, inmate must show defendant knew of but deliberately disregarded objectively serious medical need; deliberate indifference is equivalent to criminal-law recklessness); see also Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156, 157 (8th Cir.1997) (despite liberal pro se pleading standard, to state cognizable § 1983 claim, complaint must allege defendant deprived plaintiff of right, privilege, or immunity secured by Constitution or federal law).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Johnson’s section 1983 complaint.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, South Dakota inmate Leslie Johnson appeals the district court’s dismissal based upon the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Upon careful review, we affirm the dismissal, but not based on the Younger abstention doctrine. See Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 584, 591, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013) (clarifying limited applicability of Younger abstention doctrine). Instead, we affirm the dismissal on the ground that Johnson failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (dismissal is warranted at any time in in forma pauperis proceedings if action fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (court shall review complaint in civil action in which prisoner seeks redress from governmental entity, officer, or employee, and court shall dismiss complaint if it, inter alia, fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted); Spiritas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir.2013) (dismissal may be affirmed on any basis supported in record).

The only claim potentially asserted in Johnson’s complaint was a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. His allegations, however, were insufficient to state such a claim. See Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914-15 (8th Cir.2011) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim, inmate must show defendant knew of but deliberately disregarded objectively serious medical need; deliberate indifference is equivalent to criminal-law recklessness); see also Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156, 157 (8th Cir.1997) (despite liberal pro se pleading standard, to state cognizable § 1983 claim, complaint must allege defendant deprived plaintiff of right, privilege, or immunity secured by Constitution or federal law).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Johnson’s section 1983 complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 F. App'x 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leslie-john-johnson-v-douglas-weber-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack