Nersius Adonliel Artisani, also known as Roger Joseph Hoffert, Jr. v. State of Iowa

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2984
___________________________
Nersius Adonliel Artisani, also known as Roger Joseph Hoffert, Jr.
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
State of Iowa; Captain Neff, Captain, Black Hawk County Jail; Lt. Braun, Black
Hawk County Sheriff’s Office; Sergeant Paulsen, Black Hawk County Sheriff’s
Office; Thompson, Sheriff, Black Hawk County
Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: January 9, 2024
Filed: January 22, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Iowa pretrial detainee Nersius Artisani, formerly Roger Hoffert, appeals after
the district court dismissed his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and
remands for further proceedings.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Initially, this court affirms the district court’s dismissal of the State of Iowa
as a defendant. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 71 (1989)
(Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state for alleged deprivation of civil liberties
unless state waived immunity).
As to the remaining defendants, this court affirms the dismissal of Artisani’s
challenge to his segregation restrictions as unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (in evaluating the
constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial detention, the proper inquiry
is whether they amount to punishment under the Due Process Clause); Karsjens v.
Lourey, 988 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (8th Cir. 2021) (regarding pretrial detainees, the
prohibition against punishment encompasses conditions of confinement). Artisani
claimed that in segregation he was denied commissary privileges, some cleaning
supplies, and the right to attend substance abuse classes and religious services. We
conclude, based in part on the grievance responses Artisani submitted, that these
conditions did not amount to punishment. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 533
(2006) (withholding privileges “is a proper and even necessary management
technique to induce compliance with the rules of inmate behavior, especially for
high-security prisoners who have few other privileges to lose”); Smith v. Copeland,
87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996) (if particular condition or restriction of pretrial
detention is reasonably related to legitimate governmental objective, it does not,
without more, amount to punishment; government has legitimate interests that stem
from need to manage facility where individual is detained); Stickley v. Byrd, 703
F.3d 421, 424 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing sanitation-related deprivations that did not
constitute constitutional violations); Kemp v. Black Hawk Cnty. Jail, No. C15-2094,
2017 WL 581316, at *10 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 13, 2017) (because maximum security
policies related to religious observance and access to reading materials furthered
safety and security of jail, plaintiff’s confinement in maximum security did not
amount to constitutional punishment).
This court also affirms the dismissal of Artisani’s claims that the restriction
on attending classes and religious services violated the Americans with Disabilities

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Act (ADA), and his right to equal protection. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (ADA protects
individuals from being discriminated against because of a disability); Nolan v.
Thompson, 521 F.3d 983, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2008) (for equal protection claim,
plaintiff must prove defendants treated him differently from others similarly
situated, without a rational basis); Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 305 n.10 (8th Cir.
1996) (finding no equal protection violation when restrictions on administrative
segregation inmates’ access to prison resources, such as classes, were reasonable due
to safety concerns).
As to the dismissal of Artisani’s claim that he was placed in segregation
without due process on several occasions, it is not clear at this stage of the
proceedings whether the placements amounted to punishment. See Bell, 441 U.S. at
535; Hall v. Ramsey Cnty., 801 F.3d 912, 919 (8th Cir. 2015) (if plaintiff asserts
defendants unconstitutionally placed him in seclusion as a form of punishment, court
must examine whether the record supports a claim that defendants placed him in
seclusion as “punishment” and not to serve a “legitimate governmental objective”).
Thus, the court concludes that further proceedings are necessary as to this claim.
The judgment is affirmed as to the dismissal of the State of Iowa as a
defendant, and as to Artisani’s challenges to his conditions of confinement. The
judgement is reversed as to the dismissal of his due process claim, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Artisani’s
pending appellate motions are denied.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --