Jamie McCall v. Shock, No. 15-3285 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in this conditions-of-confinement suit.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3285 ___________________________ Jamie Shawn McCall lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Shock, Sheriff, Faulkner County, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: May 6, 2016 Filed: July 28, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Jamie McCall appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 official and individual capacity claims 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. against Faulkner County officials that he was exposed to various unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Faulkner County Detention Center. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude, for the reasons explained by the district court, that the court did not err in granting summary judgment. See LaCross v. City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Regarding McCall’s official capacity housing conditions claim, we have considered only the January and May 2014 occasions when McCall claims he was housed in a booking cell at the FCDC under unconstitutionally unsanitary conditions, because those were the only occasions alleged in his complaint. McCall alleged he was subject to the unsanitary conditions on other occasions in his preliminary injunction, summary judgment, and appellate pleadings, but he did not file a motion to amend his complaint. Should McCall file a motion in the district court for leave to file an amended complaint asserting an official capacity housing conditions claim that includes those additional occasions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and 60(b), we take no position on whether the district court should grant such a motion, or whether McCall would be entitled to relief if the additional incidents are considered. ______________________________ -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.
