Matthew Jewell v. Miller County, No. 12-1799 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. Defendants' judgment on plaintiff's failure-to-protect claims is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1799 ___________________________ Matthew Jewell lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Miller County, Arkansas; Linda Rambo, Former Sheriff lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________ Submitted: September 18, 2012 Filed: October 15, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Matthew Jewell appeals following the district court s1 entry of final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he raised a failure-to- 1 The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). protect claim. After careful review, we agree with the district court that Jewell failed to state an official-capacity claim against Linda Rambo or a municipal-liability claim against Miller County, as nothing in Jewell s complaint demonstrated that a municipal policy or custom caused his injuries. See L.A. Cnty. v. Humphries, 131 S. Ct. 447, 449, 452-53 (2010) (municipality is liable under § 1983 only if injury was caused pursuant to its policy or custom); Crawford v. Van Buren Cnty., 678 F.3d 666, 669 (8th Cir. 2012) (official-capacity suit against government officer is equivalent to suit against employing governmental entity). We also conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the individual-capacity claim against Rambo, because the record before the court did not reveal any trialworthy issue on whether Rambo knew of but disregarded a substantial risk that Jewell would be assaulted by other inmates at the jail. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 847 (1994) (Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim requires that inmate was under conditions posing substantial risk of serious harm, and that defendant knew of but deliberately disregarded risk). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jewell s motion for appointment of counsel. See Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
