Donald East v. Minnehaha County, 986 F.3d 816

East was jailed 2012–2014 and later at Mike Durfee State Prison; he suffered a chronic right-foot injury treated with frequent wound care, multiple surgeries (including toe amputation and bunion surgery with hardware), and follow-up procedures for fractured hardware and fractures.
East complained about delays in pain medication, allegedly improper IV care, a too-large walking boot, denial of a wheelchair, and placement in non–air-conditioned housing contrary to medical advice.
At MDSP, East alleges two officers (Baker and Goins) tightened his belly chain and that Baker threatened him with a firearm and said he would shoot him; East did not file a formal grievance, citing fear of retaliation.
Procedural posture: District court dismissed claims against PA Bradley Adams and granted summary judgment to Minnehaha County, Correct Care Solutions (CCS), other medical staff, and the two officers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; East appealed.
Eighth Circuit affirmed: dismissal of Adams and summary judgment for the remaining defendants were upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of pleading against PA Adams for §1983 deliberate indifference	East: Adams knew of serious foot problems and failed to provide further treatment	Adams: ordered x‑rays and diagnosed a sprain; plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory	Dismissal affirmed — complaint lacks nonconclusory facts showing Adams knew and was deliberately indifferent
Deliberate indifference by county, CCS, and other medical staff	East: misdiagnosis, untimely care, inadequate equipment, improper housing and boots	Defendants: provided frequent, specialist care and surgeries; delays amount to negligence or disagreement over treatment	Summary judgment for defendants — facts do not show criminal recklessness or deliberate indifference
Whether fear of retaliation excused failure to exhaust grievances against officers	East: feared retaliation after threats and hearsay reports that guards retaliated, so he did not file grievances	Defendants: threats were not connected to the grievance process and did not make administrative remedies unavailable	Summary judgment for officers affirmed — a reasonable inmate would not have understood the threats as deterrence from filing grievances; exhaustion not excused

Retro Television Network, Inc. v. Luken Comms., LLC, 696 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2012) (pleading standard; construing inferences for Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
Jones v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections, 512 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements of deliberate indifference claim)
Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference standard applies to pretrial detainees and convicts)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative exhaustion not required where remedies are unavailable due to threats or intimidation)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards on appeal)
Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2010) (disagreement with treatment does not establish deliberate indifference)
McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015) (test for excusing exhaustion when inmate fears retaliation)
Lucente v. County of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2020) (insufficient link between unrelated assaults and deterrence from using grievance system)