Hamner v. Burls, No. 18-2181 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Arkansas prison officials, alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his almost seven month detention in administrative segregation.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that the complaint failed to adequately allege a violation of plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights and therefore defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained that, although defendants did not raise qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss, the posture of the case has materially changed, and the court saw no bar to addressing qualified immunity. In regard to plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, the court held that defendants did not violate his clearly established rights. In this case, the nine occasions when plaintiff did not receive his daily treatment during his time in administrative segregation were insufficient to create an Eighth Amendment claim. In regard to plaintiff's claims related to his conditions of confinement, the court held that plaintiff failed to cite circuit precedent holding that an inadequate justification for administrative segregation or shortcomings in review of a prisoner's placement violates the Due Process Clause; defendants' conduct did not violate clearly established law; and it was not beyond debate that defendants curtailed plaintiff's liberty interest by segregating a prisoner with plaintiff's particular medical condition for 203 days under the conditions alleged.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Gruender and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. In action for damages arising out of Hamner's near-seven-month detention in administrative segregation, it was appropriate for this court to consider whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as the posture of the case on appeal has materially changed from when it was before the district court; with respect to Hamner's claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs while he in administrative segregation, the nine occasions on which he did not receive his daily treatment were insufficient to create an Eighth Amendment claim; with respect to his conditions of confinement claims, this court's prior decisions do not establish that placing a mentally ill person in administrative segregation rises to the level of a constitutional violation, and the officials' conduct in this case did not violate a clearly established right; it is not beyond debate that confinement of a person with Hamner's conditions in administrative segregation for 203 days in the conditions alleged violated a liberty interest, and the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Erickson, concurring.
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.