TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Charles Edward Hampton v. Ralph Mouser, Sheriff of Stoddard County, Missouri

Charles Edward HAMPTON, Appellant, v. Ralph MOUSER, Sheriff of Stoddard County, Missouri, Appellee

Hampton v. Mouser, 701 F.2d 766 (8th Cir. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 16, 1983
Docket
No. 82-1936
Judges
Bright, Gibson, McMillian
Citations
701 F.2d 7661983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29627

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Charles Edward Hampton, currently an inmate at the federal penitentiary in El Reno, Oklahoma, appeals pro se from the district court’s 1

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

*768 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.

1

. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. 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).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 11986: 219852026peak 1986 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Scott County Master Docket618 F. Supp. 1534 (D. Minnesota 1985)
  2. Morton v. Becker793 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1986)
  3. Morton v. Becker793 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Morton v. Becker793 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1986)
  2. Morton v. Becker793 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1986)
  3. In re Scott County Master Docket618 F. Supp. 1534 (D. Minnesota 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Wolfgang Arnold v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1981) 1,225

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list