CHARLES EDWARD HAMPTON, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH MOUSER, SHERIFF OF STODDARD COUNTY, MISSOURI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the section 1983 complaint.
Appellant alleged a sheriff's false statements in a letter to a probation officer led to a harsher sentence and negatively impacted parole and prison …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deprivation Of Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Charles Edward Hampton, currently an inmate at the federal penitentiary in El Reno, Oklahoma, appeals pro se from the district court’s1 dismissal of his section 1983 complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
Appellant alleges that Ralph Mouser, Sheriff of Stoddard County, Missouri, wrote a letter containing numerous false statements about him to the United States probation officer conducting a presentence investigation of appellant. This letter was included in the presentence report, and specifically mentioned by the trial judge at appellant’s sentencing hearing. Appellant contends that because of Sheriff Mouser’s letter, he received an unusually stiff sentence. Appellant further claims that the letter’s presence in his files has adversely affected his chances of parole and kept him out of prison programs and work details.
The district court dismissed the complaint because appellant failed to state any constitutional deprivation cognizable under section 1983. Moreover, appellant did not plead a sufficient connection between Sheriff Mouser’s act of writing the letter and the severity or terms of appellant’s confinement.2 We have reviewed the district court record and find no error of law or fact. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supp.III 1979) provides that the defendant must have subjected the plaintiff, or caused him to be subjected, to the deprivation of a constitutional right. Causation is thus an element of every section 1983 action. See, e.g., Arnold v. International Business Machines Corp., 637 F. 2d 1350, 1355-56 (9th Cir.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- Wolfgang Arnold v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1981)