Richard Lamphere v. John Mathes

Eighth Circuit

Richard Lamphere v. John Mathes

13 F. App'x 435

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 2001

Docket00-3600

StatusUnpublished

This text of 13 F. App'x 435 (Richard Lamphere v. John Mathes) 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

Richard Lamphere v. John Mathes, 13 F. App'x 435 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Richard Lamphere appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) dismissal of Lamphere’s civil rights complaint against prison officials for transferring him to another prison and reducing his class status. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly dismissed Lamphere’s complaint for the reasons explained in the court’s order. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d 1188, 1191 (8th Cir.1996). Although Lamphere complains the district court did not permit him to amend his complaint before dismissal, he did not seek leave to amend. See Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655, 657-58 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1023, 119 S.Ct. 554, 142 L.Ed.2d 461 (1998). The court also did not abuse its discretion when it refused to appoint counsel for Lamphere. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Lamphere’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

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

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Richard Lamphere appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) dismissal of Lamphere’s civil rights complaint against prison officials for transferring him to another prison and reducing his class status. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly dismissed Lamphere’s complaint for the reasons explained in the court’s order. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam); Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d 1188, 1191 (8th Cir.1996). Although Lamphere complains the district court did not permit him to amend his complaint before dismissal, he did not seek leave to amend. See Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655, 657-58 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1023, 119 S.Ct. 554, 142 L.Ed.2d 461 (1998). The court also did not abuse its discretion when it refused to appoint counsel for Lamphere. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Lamphere’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. App'x 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-lamphere-v-john-mathes-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack