Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03991/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03991-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3991

___________

Vincent E. Sargent, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael Kemna; Russell Hollowell; *

Denzler; D. Hughes; J. Richey; Baker- *

Welsh; Amy Gertz, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2005

Filed: June 8, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, McMILLIAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Sargent, an inmate at Crossroads Correctional Center in Missouri,

appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of his state law claim, and the court’s

subsequent adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming his right to equal protection was violated. Upon de novo review, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912834
-2-

Specifically, Sargent’s state law claim failed because it was undisputed that

Sargent did not arrive on time to class as he had been ordered to do, which was

conduct authorizing his placement in administrative segregation under state law. See

Cooper v. Gammon, 943 S.W. 2d 699, 707 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). Summary judgment

was proper on Sargent’s equal protection claim, because the record does not reveal

a trialworthy issue on whether, assuming Sargent was treated dissimilarly to similarly

situated inmates who were late to class, such dissimilar treatment was intentional or

purposeful discrimination. See Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 848 (8th Cir. 2003)

(where inmate did not allege membership in protected class or violation of

fundamental right, he had to show prison officials treated similarly situated classes

of inmates differently, and that differing treatment was unrelated to rational penal

interest and was intentional or purposeful discrimination); Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d

1047, 1051 (8th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (few individual examples of unequal treatment

are insufficient to provide more than minimal support for inference of purposeful

discrimination). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Entry ID: 1912834