Walter Smith v. Mark Lund

Eighth Circuit

Walter Smith v. Mark Lund

324 F. App'x 538

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2009

Docket08-1959

StatusUnpublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 538 (Walter Smith v. Mark Lund) 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

Walter Smith v. Mark Lund, 324 F. App'x 538 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Walter Smith appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he complained of conditions at Clarinda Correctional Facility where he was housed. During the pendency of this appeal, he was transferred to another institution. Therefore, Smith’s claims for injunctive relief are moot, see Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.1999), and he may not recover damages for Eighth Amendment violations because he did not allege harm to himself, see Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (8th Cir.1998); Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, his claim of retaliatory discipline fails because it was imposed for an actual violation of prison rules. See Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Finally, we agree with the district court that Smith may not bring the claims of other inmates, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985); we reject his argument that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint (a second time), because he did not seek leave to do so, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008); and we deny his pending motions.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

Walter Smith appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he complained of conditions at Clarinda Correctional Facility where he was housed. During the pendency of this appeal, he was transferred to another institution. Therefore, Smith’s claims for injunctive relief are moot, see Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir.1999), and he may not recover damages for Eighth Amendment violations because he did not allege harm to himself, see Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (8th Cir.1998); Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, his claim of retaliatory discipline fails because it was imposed for an actual violation of prison rules. See Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Finally, we agree with the district court that Smith may not bring the claims of other inmates, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985); we reject his argument that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint (a second time), because he did not seek leave to do so, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008); and we deny his pending motions.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F. App'x 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-smith-v-mark-lund-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack