East v. Lemons, 84-2407
| Decision Date | 30 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2407,84-2407 |
| Parties | Tony R. EAST, Appellant, v. Sergeant J. LEMONS, Lieutenant Rughe, W. Warfield, and O. Davis, Employees, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Paul D. Groce, North Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
Jerry E. Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Tony R. East, an inmate of the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction, appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. For reversal, East contends that the district court erred in concluding that he did not state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment cognizable under the eighth and fourteenth amendments and that he was not unconstitutionally assigned to punitive isolation. We reverse and remand.
After serving eleven months in punitive isolation in the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction, East was assigned to a hoe squad cleaning ditches. According to East, the transition from sedentary confinement to vigorous labor was difficult and, after four hours of work, he suffered severe muscle cramps in both arms. When he complained of his cramps, Sgt. Lemons, the squad supervisor, allowed him a brief rest, after which he was ordered back to work. Shortly thereafter, East renewed his complaints and requested medical attention, but Lemons simply ordered him back to work again.
East was later told not to report back for work because he was on "Disciplinary Court Review" on charges of refusing to work and refusing to obey the orders of a supervisor. After a hearing before the Cummins Unit Disciplinary Committee East was found to have violated both rules and was sentenced to serve a period in punitive isolation. East then instituted this suit, alleging that this incident violated the eighth amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and East appeals.
A prisoner may state a claim if he demonstrates that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), or if the prisoner is obliged to work beyond his physical capacity. Ray v. Mabry, 556 F.2d 881, 882 (8th Cir.1977). In Ray, this Court declared:
[F]or prison officials knowingly to compel convicts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pawneeleggins v. Jared
...to serious medical needs, and (2) compelled labor[.]" Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1207 (8th Cir. 1990) (citing East v. Lemons, 768 F.2d 1000, 1001 (8th Cir. 1985)). The plaintiff must show that the prison official knowingly compelled the prisoner to perform labor "beyond an inmate's......
-
Peterson v. Heinen
...those protections and renders them applicable to the States. See, e.g., Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S.Ct. 682, 687 (2019); East v. Lemons, 768 F.2d 1000, 1001 (8th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff submits that while the Fourteenth Amendment in the heading of the various claims in the SAC, the allegations in......
-
Dace v. Solem, 87-5268
...should be given a "chance to develop his case to the point at which the courts can determine whether it has merit." East v. Lemons, 768 F.2d 1000, 1001 (8th Cir.1985). Similarly, with regard to Dace's head injury, we think he should be entitled to further develop his claim. Although the dis......
-
Toombs v. Hicks, 85-1873
...hearing and review procedure subsequent to the events of July 31, 1984. However, the matter does not end there. In East v. Lemons, 768 F.2d 1000, 1001 (8th Cir.1985), we noted that prison officials violate the eighth amendment, as incorporated by the fourteenth amendment, if they knowingly ......