Desmond Arnez Mills v. Anne L. Precythe

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1386
___________________________
Desmond Arnez Mills
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Anne L. Precythe; Richard Adams; John Doe; Jane Doe; Mr. Unknown Berger;
Mr. Unknown Bighorse; Mr. Joseph Resz, #1244937; John Doe, #138996; Jason
Lewis; Tim Freeman; Ms. Unknown Motley; Stephanie Tanderich; Steven Wheeler
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 7, 2025
Filed: May 29, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Desmond Mills appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro
se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the inmate who assaulted him, and several prison
officials who he alleges failed to protect him from that assault or failed to properly

-- 1 of 3 --

treat him for his injuries. We agree with the district court that Mills failed to state a
constitutional claim against his assailant, Joseph Resz, as he alleged no facts
suggesting that Resz was a state actor. See De Rossitte v. Correct Care Sols., LLC,
22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022); Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir.
2011) (per curiam) (standard of review). To the extent Mills raised a due process
claim related to his placement in administrative segregation, we conclude that he
failed to allege he suffered an atypical and significant hardship. See Phillips v.
Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003).
As for Mills’s Eighth Amendment claims against the defendant prison officials,
however, we conclude reversal is warranted. While Mills did not specify in his
complaint the capacity in which he was suing these defendants, this court recently
overturned the “clear statement” rule on which the district court relied in construing
his complaint as raising only official-capacity claims; accordingly, we reverse and
remand for the district court to determine whether the course of proceedings indicated
Mills’s intent to sue these defendants in their individual capacities. See S.A.A. v.
Geisler, 127 F.4th 1133, 1138-39 (8th Cir. 2025) (en banc). The allegations in
Mills’s complaint amounted to more than mere violations of prison policy and stated
potentially viable claims against the Jane Roe nurse and at least some of the prison
official defendants. See Vandevender v. Sass, 970 F.3d 972, 976 (8th Cir. 2020)
(describing allegations that attacker was known to be violent as situation in which
substantial risk of serious harm from assault could be obvious); Allard v. Baldwin,
779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff can establish deliberate indifference to
serious medical need by showing grossly inadequate care, showing defendant decided
to take easier and less efficacious course of treatment, or showing defendant
intentionally denied access to medical care). Further, as Mills stated his intent to
amend his complaint, the district court is instructed to allow him to amend on remand.
See Rush v. State Ark. DWS, 876 F.3d 1123, 1125-26 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claims against
all defendants except Resz, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
We also reinstate the state-law claims against Resz and the Jane Roe nurse, over
which the district court now has supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a);
De Rossitte, 22 F.4th at 804. We affirm the remainder of the district court’s
judgment.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --