eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 2019-01

Larry Bell, Sr. v. Denis Conard ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2420
___________________________
Larry Dean Bell, Sr.
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Dennis Conard, Sheriff; Stepheny Burnett, Lt.; Devon Welch, Correctional Officer;
Murphy, Correctional Officer; Piper, Correctional Officer; E. Weatherwax,
Correctional Officer; S. Meier, Correctional Officer; Keil, Correctional Officer;
Briggs, Correctional Officer
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: January 14, 2019
Filed: January 30, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Iowa inmate Larry Bell filed a lawsuit seeking damages and other relief against
various prison officials for what he claims is an invasion of his privacy. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The district court1 granted Bell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissed the case.
We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Cooper v. Schriro,
    189 F.3d 781
    , 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The court correctly determined that prison
officials did not violate a clearly established constitutional right by allowing female
guards to monitor Bell through surveillance cameras. See Timm v. Gunter,
    917 F.2d 1093
    , 1102 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding “that opposite-sex surveillance of male inmates,
performed on the same basis as same-sex surveillance,” is not constitutionally
impermissible). Nor was he entitled to have his conviction overturned, as he has
requested, because this relief is only available by filing a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
    411 U.S. 475
    , 500 (1973). Finally, Bell raises
several new arguments that we will not consider for the first time on appeal. See
Stone v. Harry,
    364 F.3d 912
    , 914–15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that arguments “may
not be advanced for the first time on appeal”).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
-2-