Vernon Moves Camp v. Mark W. Barnett

Eighth Circuit

Vernon Moves Camp v. Mark W. Barnett

103 F. App'x 930

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 6, 2004

Docket03-3698

StatusUnpublished

This text of 103 F. App'x 930 (Vernon Moves Camp v. Mark W. Barnett) 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

Vernon Moves Camp v. Mark W. Barnett, 103 F. App'x 930 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Vernon Moves Camp appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action he and fourteen other South Dakota inmates brought. Because Moves Camp’s brief fails to identify any error in the district court’s final order, we conclude he has abandoned the claims raised in the complaint. Cf. Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se litigant’s appeal where brief presented no question for appellate court to decide). To the extent Moves Camp is arguing that his motions for permanent or emergency injunctions were wrongfully denied, we agree with the district court that he cannot challenge the legality of his continued confinement in a section 1983 action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 499-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (inmate challenging duration of his physical imprisonment must exhaust state remedies and petition for writ of habeas corpus); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (if judgment in favor of prisoner in § 1983 action would necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence, then no claim for damages lies unless conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, or called into question by issuance of writ of habeas corpus).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Moves Camp’s pending motions.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

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

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Vernon Moves Camp appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action he and fourteen other South Dakota inmates brought. Because Moves Camp’s brief fails to identify any error in the district court’s final order, we conclude he has abandoned the claims raised in the complaint. Cf. Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se litigant’s appeal where brief presented no question for appellate court to decide). To the extent Moves Camp is arguing that his motions for permanent or emergency injunctions were wrongfully denied, we agree with the district court that he cannot challenge the legality of his continued confinement in a section 1983 action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 499-500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (inmate challenging duration of his physical imprisonment must exhaust state remedies and petition for writ of habeas corpus); Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (if judgment in favor of prisoner in § 1983 action would necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction, continued imprisonment, or sentence, then no claim for damages lies unless conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, or called into question by issuance of writ of habeas corpus).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Moves Camp’s pending motions.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernon-moves-camp-v-mark-w-barnett-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack