Sharon Lumpkin v. Co-I Beverly A. McKennon Women's Unit

Eighth Circuit

Sharon Lumpkin v. Co-I Beverly A. McKennon Women's Unit

882 F.2d 342, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12218, 1989 WL 91780

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 1989

Docket89-1457

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 882 F.2d 342 (Sharon Lumpkin v. Co-I Beverly A. McKennon Women's Unit) 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

Sharon Lumpkin v. Co-I Beverly A. McKennon Women's Unit, 882 F.2d 342, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12218, 1989 WL 91780 (8th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIÁM.

Sharon Lumpkin, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to prison officer Beverly McKennon, in Lumpkin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging constitutional violations arising out of a prison disciplinary hearing in which Lumpkin was found guilty of violating a prison rule prohibiting sexual conduct between inmates. Because the disciplinary committee’s decision was based on McKennon’s eyewitness statement, the district court determined it was supported by “some evidence” as required by Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We affirm.

Because Lumpkin sought recalculation of her parole eligibility and release dates taking into account withheld goodtime credits, as well as damages, the principles enunciated in Offet v. Solem, 823 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir.1987), indicate the district court should have stayed the proceedings pending Lumpkin’s exhaustion of any available state remedies. Nevertheless, because Lumpkin’s challenge that the discipline lacked an evidentiary basis is without merit, see Saenz v. Young, 811 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1987), a stay would only unnecessarily delay the inevitable. We need not address Lumpkin’s remaining claims, which are raised for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIÁM.

Sharon Lumpkin, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to prison officer Beverly McKennon, in Lumpkin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging constitutional violations arising out of a prison disciplinary hearing in which Lumpkin was found guilty of violating a prison rule prohibiting sexual conduct between inmates. Because the disciplinary committee’s decision was based on McKennon’s eyewitness statement, the district court determined it was supported by “some evidence” as required by Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We affirm.

Because Lumpkin sought recalculation of her parole eligibility and release dates taking into account withheld goodtime credits, as well as damages, the principles enunciated in Offet v. Solem, 823 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir.1987), indicate the district court should have stayed the proceedings pending Lumpkin’s exhaustion of any available state remedies. Nevertheless, because Lumpkin’s challenge that the discipline lacked an evidentiary basis is without merit, see Saenz v. Young, 811 F.2d 1172, 1174 (7th Cir.1987), a stay would only unnecessarily delay the inevitable. We need not address Lumpkin’s remaining claims, which are raised for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.

900 F.2d 1305 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)

Bressman v. Farrier

900 F.2d 1305 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)

Lindsey v. Wells

901 F.2d 96 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 F.2d 342, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12218, 1989 WL 91780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharon-lumpkin-v-co-i-beverly-a-mckennon-womens-unit-ca8-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack