Larry Bell, Sr. v. Denis Conard, No. 18-2420 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court correctly determined that defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by allowing female guards to monitor him through surveillance cameras.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2420 ___________________________ Larry Dean Bell, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Dennis Conard, Sheriff; Stepheny Burnett, Lt.; Devon Welch, Correctional Officer; Murphy, Correctional Officer; Piper, Correctional Officer; E. Weatherwax, Correctional Officer; S. Meier, Correctional Officer; Keil, Correctional Officer; Briggs, Correctional Officer lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: January 14, 2019 Filed: January 30, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Iowa inmate Larry Bell filed a lawsuit seeking damages and other relief against various prison officials for what he claims is an invasion of his privacy. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court1 granted Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The court correctly determined that prison officials did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by allowing female guards to monitor Bell through surveillance cameras. See Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093, 1102 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding “that opposite-sex surveillance of male inmates, performed on the same basis as same-sex surveillance,” is not constitutionally impermissible). Nor was he entitled to have his conviction overturned, as he has requested, because this relief is only available by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Finally, Bell raises several new arguments that we will not consider for the first time on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914–15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that arguments “may not be advanced for the first time on appeal”). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, 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.
