2 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1993), 91-3189, Dunville v. Broglin
|Citation:||2 F.3d 1153|
|Party Name:||James H. DUNVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. Michael BROGLIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 18, 1993|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Submitted August 18, 1993. [*]
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, No. S86-125; Robin D. Pierce, Magistrate Judge.
Before POSNER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
James H. Dunville, an inmate at the Westville Correctional Center, appeals from the magistrate judge's entry of summary judgment on various claims relating to the conditions of his confinement. He also appeals from the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants on two issues that went to trial.
Dunville protests losing on summary judgment his allegation of denial of access to personal legal letters, papers, and materials. The magistrate judge correctly granted summary judgment on Dunville's arguments under the fourth and fourteenth amendments in light of Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).
His claim that the defendants forcibly administered psychotropic medication in violation of the eighth amendment also did not require a trial. The magistrate judge properly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). What is more, Dunville has not argued that he endured any injury, even minor discomfort, from taking the prescribed medication. Although the Constitution recognizes a prisoner's right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment even if he does not sustain significant injury, not "every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action." Hudson v. McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995, 1000 (1992). Hudson v. McMillian does not remove the requirement that a prisoner allege some sort of injury. Dunville never says what harm, if any, he suffered. Consequently, his constitutional claim is untenable.
The next argument concerns Dunville's constitutional right of access to legal resources. The jury decided this issue in favor of the defendants, and Dunville cannot easily topple...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP