Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01581/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01581-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1581

___________

Richard Alan Davis, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Philip Baughman, Sgt., Maximum * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Security Unit, ADC; Justine M. Minor, *

Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED]

James Gibson, Disciplinary Hearing *

Administrator, ADC; Larry Norris, *

Director, ADC; David White, Warden, *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Larry *

May, Deputy Assistant Director, ADC; *

Willie Taylor, CO-Maximum Security *

Unit, ADC; Faron Clemmons, *

CO-Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *

Billy Ray Smith, Inmate, Maximum *

Security Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 31, 2008

Filed: February 5, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 07-1581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399033
1

The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2

Davis has not challenged on appeal the pre-service dismissal of the other seven

named defendants.

-2-

Arkansas inmate Richard Alan Davis appeals the district court’s1 grant of

summary judgment to defendants Philip Baughman and Justine M. Minor in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action.2

 Davis claimed that Baughman violated his constitutional rights

by harassing him and filing a false disciplinary charge against him in retaliation for

Davis’s cooperation in an internal investigation, and that Minor violated his due

process and equal protection rights by convicting him of the false charge in a biased

hearing and by failing to list or explain the evidence she relied on in making her

decision.

Based upon our consideration of Davis’s arguments for reversal and our de

novo review of the record, see Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003),

we conclude that summary judgment was proper. We agree with the district court that

Davis’s claims against Minor were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

486-87 (1994), because he had not successfully challenged his disciplinary conviction

in state court, and a favorable decision would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

resulting loss of good time credits and, hence, the length of his confinement. See

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (state prisoner’s § 1983 action is

barred if success in action would invalidate confinement or its duration (not

previously invalidated), no matter if prisoner attacks conviction or internal prison

proceeding or seeks damages or equitable relief). Further, Davis’s equal protection

claim failed because he did not allege how he was treated differently from other

similarly situated persons. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 984 (8th

Cir. 2004) (to succeed on equal protection claim, inmate must show he is treated

differently than similarly situated class of inmates). Finally, we conclude that Davis’s

Appellate Case: 07-1581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399033
-3-

retaliatory discipline claims against Baughman failed because his conviction of the

disciplinary charge was supported by “some evidence.” See Henderson v. Baird, 29

F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 1994) (prisoner’s claim of retaliatory discipline failed because

disciplinary committee’s finding that he violated prison rules was based on guard’s

description of event, which constituted “some evidence” of actual violation); Rudd v.

Sargent, 866 F.2d 260, 262 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (statements in prison officer’s

written disciplinary report of alleged sexual assault reciting victim’s statements

constituted “some evidence” to support rule violation even though officer did not

witness violation).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1581 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399033