Harry Sisco v. IA Dept. of Corr. ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 98-1117
    ___________
    Harry B. Sisco,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                               *
    * Appeal from the United States
    Iowa Department of Corrections;        * District Court for the
    John Ault; Duffy, Dr., sued as Medical * Northern District of Iowa.
    Consultant Duffy, I.M.R.; Lambert,     *
    C/O, sued as Capt. Lambert,            *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Grievance Officer; Michael L.          *
    Fulwider, sued as Mike Fulweiber,      *
    c/o LUD-1,                             *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: July 7, 1998
    Filed: July 20, 1998
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Inmate Harry B. Sisco brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several prison
    officials and employees. He claimed they were deliberately indifferent to his serious
    medical needs in that he required a cell assignment with a nonsmoking cell mate,
    because he suffers from the adverse effects of second-hand smoke. In written findings
    and conclusions following a bench trial, the district court1 found that Sisco had a
    serious medical need for a smoke-free environment, but it concluded Sisco had failed
    to establish that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need. The court entered
    judgment in favor of defendants.
    On appeal, Sisco has moved for a trial transcript prepared at government
    expense, but he has not pointed to specific errors in the district court&s factual findings.
    We thus deny the motion. After careful review of the record and the parties& briefs, we
    affirm the district court&s judgment, because Sisco failed to prove defendants were
    deliberately indifferent. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 834, 837 (1994). To
    the extent Sisco argues for reversal because his appointed trial counsel refused to
    advance certain claims, his argument is meritless. See Bettis v. Delo, 
    14 F.3d 22
    , 24
    (8th Cir. 1994) (refusing to review claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because
    appellant in civil action was not constitutionally entitled to representation); Glick v.
    Henderson, 
    855 F.2d 536
    , 541 (8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The HONORABLE JOHN A. JARVEY, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Northern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
    consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-1117

Filed Date: 7/20/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021