Isiah Jones v. Dr. Janssen Williams, et al, No. 08-1920 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - civil rights. District court did not err in finding no trialworthy issues on Eighth Amendment claims and did not grossly abuse its discretion in denying motion to compel. Issues raised in earlier complaints, raised for the first time on appeal, based on evidence not part of the record, and raised in postjudgment motions not separately appealed are declined.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1920 ___________ Isiah J. Jones, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Frank Hopkins, Assistant Director * of Institutions as Nebraska Department * of Corrections, in his official capacity; * Nebraska Department of Correctional * Services, * * Defendants, * * Dr. Janssen Williams, in his individual * capacity; Kris Galatis, in her individual * capacity, * * Appellees. * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: October 7, 2009 Filed: October 8, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Nebraska inmate Isiah J. Jones appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we agree with the reasons the district court cited for finding no trialworthy issues on Jones s Eighth Amendment claims arising from the treatment of his hypertension or from the treatment of his finger fracture. We also find no gross abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of Jones s motion to compel. See Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). We decline to consider Jones s references to claims against defendants named in earlier versions of his complaint, see In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (amended complaint supercedes earlier versions of complaint, rendering them without legal effect); the issues he raises for the first time on appeal, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004); evidence that was not part of the summary judgment record, see Martin v. Russell, 563 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2009); or Jones s challenges to the denial of postjudgment relief, given his failure to amend his notice of appeal or file another notice of appeal designating the order denying such relief, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Jones s pending motions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -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.
