Bobby Joe Downs v. Nick Ludwick, No. 15-1883 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment. [ February 02, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1883 ___________________________ Bobby Joe Downs lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nick Ludwick; Rebecca Bowker; Deborah Nichols; Todd Ensminger; Thomas Jones; Berl Wilcox; Sheryl Dahm; Dave DeGrange; William Ell, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: January 28, 2016 Filed: February 3, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Iowa inmate Bobby Joe Downs filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Iowa State Penitentiary Warden Nick Ludwick and eight other prison officials. Downs claimed he was denied access to legal materials and subjected to other unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. The district court correctly found that Downs did not establish an actual injury in support of his denial-of-access claim. See Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008). Downs was not deprived of his right to religious freedom or subjected to a violation of the Establishment Clause based on the availability of a Christian-oriented television channel. Cf. Young v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir. 1991) (Free Exercise Clause guarantees liberty interest; it does not guarantee that all religious sects will be treated alike in all respects). The claim of sexual exploitation, based on Downs’s perception of the sexual orientation of a prison guard, did not make the visual strip searches, to which Downs did not otherwise object, unconstitutional. The remaining general claims did not rise to a constitutional violation. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
