Haas v. Weiner, 84-5185
| Decision Date | 19 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5185,84-5185 |
| Citation | 765 F.2d 123 |
| Parties | Michael Gene HAAS, Appellant, v. Chet WEINER, individually, and as agent for the State of Minnesota, and as an agent for Region "E" Drug Investigation Unit, and Region "E" Drug Investigation Unit, an agent for all counties in the State of Minnesota and the State of Minnesota, and the County of Redwood, and Sheriff Jerry Luttman, Sheriff of Redwood County and authorized agent of Redwood County, and Lyon County, and Leon Van Den Broeke, as former sheriff of Lyon County and authorized agent of Lyon County, and individually, and the County of Yellow Medicine, and Paul R. Moe, as former sheriff of Yellow Medicine County, as authorized agent of Yellow Medicine County, and Martin Arimborgo, as authorized agent of Lyon County, and individually, and John Doe and Richard Roe, authorized agents of all counties of the State of Minnesota, County of Big Stone, County of Chippewa, County of Jackson, County of Kandiyohi, Lincoln County, McLeod County, Murray County, Nobles County, and Swift County, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Allen Swen Anderson of Granite Falls, Minn., for appellant.
Douglas Muirhead of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellees.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and SACHS, * District Judge.
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 brought by Michael Gene Haas, who was a prisoner in the Lyon County, Minnesota, Jail at the time of the events giving rise to his claim. The defendants are Paul Moe, Sheriff of Yellow Medicine County, Minnesota and others. The District Court 1 granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and we affirm.
The principal theory underlying the complaint is that certain actions of Moe and other defendants inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on the plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff claims, in substance, that Moe approached him while he was in the Lyon County Jail and asked him to work as an undercover informant to set up drug deals between sellers and undercover law-enforcement agents. In exchange for this cooperation, it is alleged, Moe promised to get Haas a favorable sentence on pending aggravated-forgery charges in Yellow Medicine County. Haas accepted this offer, cooperated with Moe in undercover activities, and received in exchange a five-year "stayed" sentence on the Yellow Medicine County charges. Haas alleges that the defendants allowed him to have marijuana and alcohol for his use in the jail, that he also was required or at least permitted to use alcohol as part of his cover while working for defendants, and on occasion also smoked marijuana while working as a police agent. The alcohol and drugs were harmful to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ginter v. US
...Summary judgment, however, "is an extreme remedy, to be granted only if no genuine issue exists as to any material fact." Haas v. Weiner, 765 F.2d 123, 124 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 386, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court mu......
-
Sixel v. Transportation Communications
...Umpleby v. United States, 806 F.2d 812, 814 (8th Cir.1986); Buford v. Tremayne, 747 F.2d 445, 447 (8th Cir.1984); see Haas v. Weiner, 765 F.2d 123, 124 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 981, 106 S.Ct. 386, 88 L.Ed.2d 338 (1985). Summary judgment may be granted against a party who fails......
-
Donatti v. Charter Commc'ns, L.L.C.
...judgment, however, “is an extreme remedy, to be granted only if no genuine issue exists as to any material fact.” Haas v. Weiner, 765 F.2d 123, 124 (8th Cir.1985). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court must view all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, an......
-
Stout v. Jaimet
...outside of prison, was free to examine the playing field for what he now characterizes as an apparent defect. Cf. Haas v. Weiner, 765 F.2d 123, 124 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ("[C]onduct in which one voluntarily engages can hardly be said to violate the Eighth Amendment.")." Christopher, ......