Clark v. Armontrout, s. 93-1170
| Decision Date | 29 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | 93-1215,93-1172,Nos. 93-1170,s. 93-1170 |
| Citation | 28 F.3d 71 |
| Parties | Will E. CLARK, also known as Will Elliot Clark; James Miller, Appellees, v. Bill ARMONTROUT; Donald Cline; Phillip Vance, Appellants. Will E. CLARK, also known as Will Elliot Clark; James Miller, Appellants, v. Bill ARMONTROUT; Donald Cline; Phillip Vance, Appellees. Will E. CLARK, also known as Will Elliot Clark; James Miller, Appellees, v. Bill ARMONTROUT; Donald Cline; Phillip Vance, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Geoffrey W. Preckshot, Jefferson City, MO, argued (Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon and Geoffrey W. Preckshot on the brief), for appellants.
Craig E. Gustafson, Kansas City, MO, argued, for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAGILL, Circuit Judge.
Will Clark and James Miller ("the Inmates") brought this Sec. 1983 action against three Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC) officials--Warden Bill Armontrout, Assistant Warden Donald Cline, and Lieutenant Phillip Vance ("Prison Officials")--alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in Housing Unit 5C. The Inmates alleged exposure to a scummy shower stall, filthy lice-infested mattresses, and very low cell temperatures. The jury found in favor of the Inmates and awarded each plaintiff $1.00 in nominal damages. The trial court awarded the Inmates attorney's fees in the amount of $11,017.71. Both parties appeal.
Prison Officials assert that the trial court erred (1) in giving an erroneous eighth amendment instruction; (2) in giving a nominal damages instruction; (3) in refusing to accept the jury's first completed verdict form, on which the jury omitted nominal damages; and (4) in failing to award attorney's fees in proportion to the damages won. The Inmates cross-appeal, contending that the district court erred (1) in failing to find the award of only $1.00 insufficient as a matter of law; and (2) in failing to reinstruct the jury on actual damages when it ordered the jury to award nominal damages. We reverse and remand for a new trial in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Farmer v. Brennan, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
We need address only the Prison Officials' claim of an improper eighth amendment instruction. The district court instructed the jury that to prevail, the Inmates had to prove:
First, plaintiff's conditions of confinement in Housing Unit 5C were unsanitary and inhumane; and
Second, defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's constitutional right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, either because defendant intended to deprive him of some right, or because defendant acted with reckless disregard of plaintiff's right to be free from unsanitary and inhumane conditions of confinement; and
Third, as a direct result, plaintiff was damaged.
Appellants' Joint App., vol. I pp. 21-26 (emphasis added).
Prison Officials objected to the second paragraph of this instruction, contending that it failed to fairly and adequately present the deliberate indifference standard. On appeal, Prison Officials assert that the instruction did not include the intent requirement established in Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), because it permitted the jury to find deliberate indifference based on Prison Officials' reckless disregard of the Inmates' rights. Prison Officials argue that they must possess actual knowledge of the inhumane or unsanitary conditions to be found liable under the eighth amendment.
Since the filing of our initial majority and dissenting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Illinois
...Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156, 165–66 (2d Cir.2001); Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 353 (5th Cir.1999); Clark v. Armontrout, 28 F.3d 71, 71 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 822, 825 (4th Cir.1991). But we need to distinguish among three different types of......
-
Williams v. Delo
...946 F.2d at 71 (quoting Porth v. Farrier, 934 F.2d 154, 157 (8th Cir.1991)). Farmer rejects that approach. See Clark v. Armontrout, 28 F.3d 71, 72 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (noting that Farmer "clarified" subjective requirements of deliberate indifference standard). Whether the conduct of......
-
Griffin v. Ark. Cmty. Corr., 3:18cv00110-DPM-JJV
...which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and also drew the inference. See Clark v. Armontrout, 28 F.3d 71, 72 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). For these reasons, I previously recommended Plaintiff's Amended Comp......
-
Adc v. Ark. Cmty. Corr., 3:18cv00110-DPM-JJV
...which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and also drew the inference. See Clark v. Armontrout, 28 F.3d 71, 72 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). For these reasons, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed......