Anthony Nelson v. Ray Hobbs, No. 12-2940 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff's claims are not susceptible to meaningful review as he has failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings; complaint about counsel's performance are not a basis for relief in this civil matter. [ April 10, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2940 ___________________________ Anthony Nelson, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Greg Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Steve Outlaw, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Paulette Green, Previously Identified as P. Green, Classification Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; William Gay, Mental Health Case Worker, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees, R. Clemmons, Lt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; S. DeCoursey, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Hughes, CO-II, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants, Adrian Wallace, Previously Identified as A. Wallace, CO-II, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; April Brandon, Previously Identified as Brandon, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees, Barnes, CO-II, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: April 4, 2013 Filed: April 11, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anthony Nelson appeals from the district court s1 entry of judgment upon an adverse jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 complaint. Having carefully reviewed the parties submissions and the record before us on appeal, we conclude that Nelson s claims are not susceptible to meaningful review because he failed to provide a transcript of the trial proceedings. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (discussing appellant s duty to order transcript); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 385-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (where pro se appellant did not order trial transcript, appellate court could not review claim of judicial bias, evidentiary rulings, or sufficiency of evidence). We further conclude that his complaints about his counsel s performance are not a basis for relief in this civil matter. See Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 2002) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case, even 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- for plaintiff who had been appointed counsel; proper remedy is action for malpractice). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-
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.
