Nei v. Dooley, 03-3261.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-3261.,03-3261. |
| Citation | 372 F.3d 1003 |
| Parties | Bryan Richard NEI; Alvin King; Paul Leo Amundson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Robert DOOLEY, Warden, Mike Durfee State Prison, Springfield, SD; Lisa McFletcher, Unit Manager, Mike Durfee State Prison; Sally Boyd, Head of Special Security at Mike Durfee State Prison, all in their individual capacities and not their official capacities; Defendants-Appellants, Paul Soyars, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Bryan Richard Nei, Alvin King, and Paul Leo Amundson, current or former inmates at the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota, brought this civil rights action against the warden, Robert Dooley, and other prison officials, Unit Manager Lisa McFletcher and Special Security Head Sally Boyd. The inmates claimed the prison officials violated their Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect them from an HIV-positive inmate, Paul Soyars, who assaulted and threatened to infect his fellow inmates. The inmates also asserted McFletcher and Boyd retaliated against Nei and King for bringing the lawsuit by placing them in segregation, and against Nei, King, and Amundson by denying them access to the prison law library. The district court* denied the prison officials' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The prison officials appeal.
We explain the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the inmates, who opposed the officials' motion for summary judgment. Pagels v. Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 738 (8th Cir.2003). While incarcerated at the Mike Durfee State Prison, Soyars admitted to inmates and prison staff that he was infected with AIDS. He often threatened inmates that he would infect them with the virus. While cleaning the prison restrooms, Soyars urinated on the floor, spit in the sinks and water fountains, and smeared fecal matter on the floor. In early April of 2000, King approached McFletcher to report he disapproved of the way Soyars "cleaned" the bathroom and he did not want to live with someone who threatened to expose people to AIDS. Soyars and King got into a fight afterwards. Soyars spit in King's face. Soyars cut his lip, and his blood came into contact with an open wound on King's hand. A few days later, Soyars got into a fight with another inmate and threatened to infect the inmate with AIDS. King and Nei told Boyd and McFletcher about Soyars's threats, fights, and how he would "clean" the restrooms. Nei and King asked the officials to remove Soyars from the prison. Because prison officials took no action, King filed a grievance later that month asking for Soyars removal. The same day, King obtained signatures from several inmates to initiate a class action lawsuit. Boyd and McFletcher accused King and Nei of initiating an illegal petition drive. Four days later, King received a response from his grievance stating that prison policy prohibited the segregation of infected inmates outside the population. The next day, King filed an appeal. On May 1, King filed a federal complaint asking that Soyars be removed from the prison. McFletcher received an anonymous note the same day, stating Soyars was improperly cleaning the toilets, Soyars claimed he was HIV positive, and Soyars had threatened the note's author. McFletcher concluded either Nei or King wrote the note, and reported to Boyd, who was told by Soyars that he was HIV positive. The next day, during a fight, Soyars pushed Nei and threatened to infect him with AIDS. Some of Soyars's blood went into Nei's mouth, on his body, and on his clothing. Two days later, after the prison received a file stamped copy of the complaint in this action, King and Nei were placed in segregation. Nei filed a grievance asking why he had been placed in the hole. The prison responded he was under investigation and would be in segregation until the investigation was completed. King filed an appeal demanding a explanation for his placement in the hole. King and Nei were released from the hole the next day. In mid June, Soyars got into a fights with Amundson, during which Soyars threatened infection, and a fight with another inmate involving bloodshed. Prison staff were advised of the fights. In late October, Boyd sent an e-mail to other prison officials acknowledging that Soyars admitted he is HIV positive to staff, and during an October fight, Soyars started to bleed, so the other inmate involved would be tested for AIDS because of possible blood exchange. Beginning in the fall of 2000, King, Nei, and Amundson requested access to the inmate law library to research and draft documents for their written complaint. Boyd and McFletcher denied them access. In December, the inmates again requested access to draft a response to the inmates' answer. Boyd and McFletcher again denied them access to the law library.
Qualified immunity protects government...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. Dept. of Correction and Rehabilitation
...to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates and to protect them from violence by other prisoners." Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir.2004). "A prison official violates the eighth amendment if he or she `acts with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of ......
-
Webb v. Johnson
...protected right is actionable, even if the conduct would have been proper if motivated by a different reason." Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 770-71 (8th Cir.2001)). To be actionable, the retaliatory conduct itself need not be uncons......
-
Stanko v. Patton
...of the defendants or anything else that one typically sees in well-founded "failure to protect" cases.8 Compare Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1006-1007 (8th Cir.2004) (affirming denial of motion for summary judgment against warden and other officials where there was evidence presented by mu......
-
Davis v. Lancaster
...to him because, as Defendants ostensibly concede, placement in administrative segregation in an adverse action. See Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004); Taylor v. Bailey, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89280, at *20 (E.D. Mo. July 1, 2014); Marshall v. Walker, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98......
-
The prisoner's ombudsman: protecting constitutional rights and fostering justice in American corrections.
...Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2003). (123.) Id. at 510-11. (124.) Id. at 512-14. (125.) Id. at 514. (126.) Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). For some other recent cases finding Eighth Amendment violations, see Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 904 (7......
-
Nei v. Dooley.
...Appeals Court PRISONER ON PRISONER ASSAULT Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2004). Inmates brought a civil rights action against a warden and other prison officials claiming that their Eighth Amendment rights were violated by exposure to an HIV-positive inmate who assaulted and threat......