Moore v. Duffy, 00-2222

Citation255 F.3d 543
Decision Date14 March 2001
Docket NumberNo. 00-2222,00-2222
Parties(8th Cir. 2001) MAURICE MOORE, APPELLEE, v. DR. JOHN DUFFY, APPELLANT. Submitted:
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Before Morris Sheppard Arnold and Heaney, Circuit Judges, and Battey, District Judge.1

Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judge

Dr. John Duffy brings this interlocutory appeal from the district court's2 denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Inmate Maurice Moore filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Dr. Duffy was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Dr. Duffy moved for summary judgment based, in part, on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was a material fact issue regarding deliberate indifference and that qualified immunity was unavailable because, viewing the evidence favorably to Mr. Moore, Dr. Duffy's conduct was not objectively reasonable under clearly established law. Dr. Duffy contends on appeal that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known," Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). To establish his eighth amendment claim, Mr. Moore had to prove that he had "objectively serious medical needs" and that Dr. Duffy "actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs," Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999). " '[D]eliberate indifference includes something more than negligence but less than actual intent to harm'; it requires proof of a reckless disregard of the known risk," Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1152 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting Newman v. Holmes, 122 F.2d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 1997). Dr. Duffy acknowledges that he knew of the serious medical needs of Mr. Moore, who suffered from AIDS and hepatitis C, but argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was not deliberately indifferent to those needs.

Mr. Moore contends that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Although there is ordinarily no appeal from the denial of summary judgment, "summary judgment determinations are appealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an 'abstract issu[e] of law' relating to qualified immunity ... typically, the issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was 'clearly established' " (emphasis in original), Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996), quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 317 (1995). A district court's determination of evidentiary sufficiency is not subject to an interlocutory appeal, however, simply because the determination occurs in a qualified immunity case. See Behrens, 516 U.S. at 313; see also Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319-20.

Although medical negligence does not violate the eighth amendment, see Roberson, 198 F.3d at 647, Dr. Duffy does not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 cases
  • Youngbear v. Thalacker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 8 Noviembre 2001
    ...Carroll v. Pfeffer, 262 F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir.2001); Wilson v. Lawrence County, 260 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir.2001); Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir.2001); Vaughn v. Ruoff, 253 F.3d 1124, 1127 (8th Cir.2001); Thomas v. Talley, 251 F.3d 743, 746 (8th Cir.2001); Tlamka v. Serrell, 24......
  • Troupe v. St Louis Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 15 Marzo 2022
    ...may so deviate from the applicable standard of care as to evidence a [medical staff's] deliberate indifference.” Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 2001). qualified immunity must be denied at this stage because a reasonable finder of fact could conclude under these alleged circumst......
  • Goodrich v. Hacker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 20 Marzo 2017
    ...that the medical treatment provided by the defendant did not deviate from the applicable standard of care. Cf. Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that medical treatment may so deviate from applicable standard of care as to evidence deliberate indifference). It is und......
  • S.E.C. v. Guenthner, 8:02CV10.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • 26 Septiembre 2005
    ...expert testimony is required to establish the relevant standard of care applicable to a professional. See, e.g., Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir.2001) (involving a medical doctor); Diversified Graphics, Ltd. v. Groves, 868 F.2d 293, 296 (8th Cir.1989) (involving a computer system......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT