Drone v. Hutto, 77-1143

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation565 F.2d 543
PartiesCarl Lee DRONE, Appellant, v. Terrell Don HUTTO, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction, and Lt. Jimmy Dougan, Correctional Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 77-1143,77-1143
Decision Date28 November 1977

Page 543

565 F.2d 543
Carl Lee DRONE, Appellant,
v.
Terrell Don HUTTO, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of
Correction, and Lt. Jimmy Dougan, Correctional
Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas
Department of Correction, Appellees.
No. 77-1143.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 14, 1977.
Decided Nov. 28, 1977.

Barber, McCaskill, Amsler & Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Newcomb (former Asst. Atty. Gen.), Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.

Page 544

Before BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges; and HARPER, Senior District Judge. *

PER CURIAM.

Carl Lee Drone, a prisoner at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction, brought a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970), against Lt. Jimmy Dougan, a corrections officer at the prison, and Terrell Don Hutto, Commissioner of the Department of Correction, seeking damages and injunctive relief because of injuries sustained at the hands of Lt. Dougan and other correctional officers at Cummins. The district court heard the prisoner's case without a jury and entered a dismissal. It found that, although Dougan admitted striking Drone several times with a slapper and although other prison guards joined in striking Drone, the force used by Dougan against Drone was not excessive and was used solely for the purposes of self-defense. Apparently Drone struck Dougan first and in the process broke Dougan's glasses.

On this appeal Drone, through counsel appointed by this court, urges that the district judge erred in refusing to grant his demand for a jury trial, in refusing to appoint an attorney to represent him in the district court, and in rejecting the testimony of his witnesses. We agree with the first contention and reverse as against appellee Dougan. 1 We hold that because Carl Lee Drone demanded a jury trial in his complaint the trial court was obligated to grant the request under the seventh amendment.

In the concluding section of his pro se complaint, appellant requested, among other things, a "trial by jury on all facts trialable (sic) by jury(.)" The district court had denied a jury trial because appellant sought equitable relief as well as damages. The court committed error in this regard, for it is well established that a plaintiff in the federal court asserting both legal and equitable claims in the same lawsuit is entitled to a jury trial on the legal issue. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Poindexter v. F.B.I., 83-1151
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 26, 1984
    ...as ill-suited for managing a pro se suit as Luna, an industrial worker with only a limited ability to speak English"); Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543, 544-45 (8th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (ordering district court to reconsider failure to appoint counsel where record disclosed that plaintiff mig......
  • Setser v. Novack Inv. Co., 80-1100
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 26, 1981
    ...See Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees, 607 F.2d 705 (6th Cir. 1979); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1977); and Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 6 There is a third possible rationale for characterizing backpay as equitable. The Supreme Court has reasoned that because awards ......
  • Cookish v. Cunningham, 85-1666
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • March 20, 1986
    ...Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 889 (7th Cir.1981) (petitioner was confined to a wheelchair and in constant pain); Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543, 544 (8th Cir.1977) (petitioner suffered from mental illness). Instead, appellant exhibited relative familiarity with the legal process. His pleadi......
  • Johnson v. Williams, s. 84-1257
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 15, 1986
    ...623 F.2d 536 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam), the ability of an indigent to present his claim, Maclin, 650 F.2d at 889, citing Drone v. Hutto, 565 F.2d 543 (8th Cir.1977) (per curiam), and the complexity of the legal issues. Maclin, 650 F.2d at 889. These factors are "by no means an exclusive c......
  • 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