Glick v. Sargent
Decision Date | 10 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1840,82-1840 |
Citation | 696 F.2d 413 |
Parties | Dennis P. GLICK, Appellant, v. Willis SARGENT, Warden, and Officer Foote, Employee, Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Dennis P. Glick, pro se.
Dennis R. Molock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Before ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIES, Senior District Judge. *
Dennis Glick is an inmate in the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. During a shakedown of Glick's cell on February 22, 1982, Corrections Officer Foote found a plexiglass cell key outside the cell window. Since there was a hole in the cell window, Officer Foote deduced that the key had been cut from the window glass. Foote also found a piece of iron from Glick's bed outside the window. He charged Glick with prison rule violations and instituted a major disciplinary proceeding against him. Glick's defense at the disciplinary hearing was that he was unaware of the key's existence because it had been put there by another inmate. The disciplinary committee found Glick guilty of the charges and ordered him placed in punitive isolation.
Glick brought suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that Foote and prison warden Sargent violated his constitutional rights. The United States Magistrate reviewed the complaint and recommended dismissal. Glick filed objections and the state filed a response. The district court 1 reviewed the pleadings and dismissed the complaint, finding that Glick had not stated a cause of action against either defendant. Glick appeals from that dismissal.
We note initially that appellant's pro se complaint, construed liberally, is merely an appeal from the disciplinary committee's findings. No cause of action is stated against either defendant Foote or defendant Sargent. The basis of appellant's complaint against Foote is that he initiated the action which resulted in the disciplinary committee's ultimate determination. Officer Foote did not serve on the committee which found appellant guilty. In fact, charging officers are forbidden from sitting in judgment on their own complaints in disciplinary proceedings. Finney v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194, 208 (8th Cir.1974).
In the same vein, the complaint alleges no wrongdoing on Warden Sargent's part. The warden's responsibility for overseeing the operations of the Cummins Unit is an insufficient basis for liability in a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to actions brought pursuant to this section. Cotton v. Hutto, 577 F.2d 453, 455 (8th Cir.1978); see Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71, 96 S.Ct. 598, 603-604, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). Appellant does not allege that the warden...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Malone v. Schenk
...436 U.S. 658, 691-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036-38, 65 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Ross v. Reed, 719 F.2d 689, 698 (4th Cir. 1983); Glick v. Sargent, 696 F.2d 413, 414-15 (8th Cir.1983); Iskander v. Village of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir.1982); Fulton Market Cold Storage Co. v. Cullerton, 582......
-
Green v. State
...superior is inapplicable to suits for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018; Glick v. Sargent, 696 F.2d 413, 414-15 (8th Cir.1983). A municipality can only be liable for a § 1983 violation if the execution of the municipality's official policy or custom i......
-
Jackson v. Rapps
...he is not liable because the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Glick v. Sargent, 696 F.2d 413, 414 (8th Cir.1983). The doctrine of respondeat superior, however, is not at issue in the case at bar. The action for which plaintiff Jackson seeks ......
-
Swearengin v. Chamberlain
... ... connection between his actions and the alleged constitutional ... deprivation. See Glick v. Sargent , 696 F.2d 413, 415 ... (8th Cir. 1983) (warden must play a personal role in the ... disciplinary process; he cannot be held ... ...