Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_17-cv-00216/USCOURTS-ared-2_17-cv-00216-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JESSIE BUCHANAN PLAINTIFF 

ADC #099656 

v. 2:17-cv-00216-KGB-JJV 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction; et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the 

objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports 

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the 

United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings 

and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 10
2 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Jessie Buchanan (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the East Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”) 

of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”). His only remaining claim is that Defendants 

Deputy Wardens Mark Warner and James Dycus violated his equal protection rights, as protected 

by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by assigning him to a field utility job based on his race.1 (Doc. Nos. 2, 41.) 

Plaintiff is proceeding with this claim against Defendants in their individual capacities, and 

monetary damages are the only type of relief he seeks. (Id.) 

 Defendants have filed a Second Motion for Summary Judgment arguing they are entitled 

to qualified immunity. (Doc. Nos. 43, 44, 45.) Plaintiff has responded, Defendants have Replied, 

and this matter is now ripe for a decision. (Doc. Nos. 46, 49). After careful review and for the 

following reasons, I find the Second Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED, and 

Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Defendants Warner and Dycus should be dismissed with 

prejudice. 

 

1

 On March 5, 2019, the Court dismissed all other claims raised in the Complaint and gave 

Defendants an opportunity to renew their request for summary judgment on the remaining equal 

protection claim. (Doc. No. 41.) 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 10
3 

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

 Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper “if 

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or 

is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the 

record, “including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, 

interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

 When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th 

Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the 

existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 

(8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party’s allegations must be supported by sufficient probative 

evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or 

fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a 

reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the 

outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). 

Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary 

judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010). 

III. FACTS 

The following facts are undisputed. (Doc. Nos. 2, 28, 43, 46, 49.) Prisoners at the EARU 

received job and housing assignments from the Classification Committee, which includes Deputy 

Wardens Warner and Dycus. (Doc. No. 49-1.) Usually, prisoners meet with the Committee once 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 10
4 

a year, but they also do so whenever prisoners are released from disciplinary confinement or 

investigative status. (Id.) The Committee assigns prisoners to jobs based on the needs of the 

institution. (Id.) 

 On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff, who is African American, and Ricky Rothenberger, who is 

Caucasian, got into an argument. (Doc. Nos. 2, 28, 43, 46, 49.) Both men were Class 1 inmates 

with excellent disciplinary records, and they both were assigned to jobs inside the prison. (Id.) 

Plaintiff worked as a school porter, while Rothenberger was a camera man with the maintenance 

crew. After the argument, they were removed from their jobs and placed on investigative status 

for seventy-two hours. (Id.) On June 26, 2016, Plaintiff and Rothenberger were released from 

investigative status without disciplinary charges being filed against either of them. (Id.) 

 On or about June 28, 2016, Plaintiff appeared before the Classification Committee. (Id.) 

At the beginning of the meeting, Deputy Warden Warner suggested Plaintiff return to his job as a 

school porter. (Id.) The Classification Supervisor, who is no longer a party in this case, mentioned 

school was out of session for the summer. (Id.) Plaintiff objected to the reassignment because he 

was still doing unspecified tasks to close out the school year. (Id.) The Committee decided to reassign Plaintiff to field utility because the unit needed help harvesting crops.2

 (Id.) On the same 

day, Rothenberger appeared before the Committee, which allowed him to return to his job as a 

camera operator. (Id.) Plaintiff remained on field utility until sometime in December 2016, when 

he was reassigned to an unspecified inside position. (Id.) 

IV. ANALYSIS 

Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on the equal protection claim 

 

2

 According to the affidavit filed by the current Warden, the EARU is a “highly agricultural unit” 

that grows multiple crops used to feed the inmates in that facility. (Doc. No. 43-1 at 1) 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 10
5 

raised against them in their individual capacities. Qualified immunity protects government 

officials who act in an objectively reasonable manner and shields them from liability when his or 

her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018); Harlow 

v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity is a question of law, not a question 

of fact. McClendon v. Story Cty. Sheriff's Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, issues 

concerning qualified immunity are appropriately resolved on summary judgment. See Mitchell v. 

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (clarifying the privilege is “an immunity from suit rather than 

a mere defense to liability; and like absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously 

permitted to go to trial”). Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if: (1) the facts, construed 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, do not establish a violation of a constitutional right; or 

(2) the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, such that 

a reasonable official would not have known his or her actions were unlawful. See Cullor v. 

Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016); see also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 

(2009) (explaining courts are “permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of 

the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the 

circumstances in the particular case at hand”). 

 Plaintiff claims Defendants Warner and Dycus racially discriminated against him, in 

violation of the equal protection clause, by reassigning him to field utility while allowing 

Rothenberger and other Caucasian inmates released from investigative review status to return to 

their inside jobs. It is well settled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to a specific job 

assignment. Sanchez v. Earls, No. 13-2579, 2013 WL 5629816 (8th Cir. Oct. 16, 2013) 

(unpublished opinion); Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683, 684 (8th Cir. 2002). However, prison 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 5 of 10
6 

officials cannot intentionally treat inmates differently based on their race. Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). As to the second part of the qualified immunity analysis, it was clearly 

established, many years prior to the incidents in this case, that prison officials cannot racially 

discriminate against prisoners in job assignments. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321 (1972); 

Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007). 

 To defeat qualified immunity and proceed to trial on his racial discrimination claim, 

Plaintiff must have evidence that: (1) he was treated differently from similarly situated inmates; 

and (2) the different treatment was the result of intentional and purposeful racial discrimination. 

See In re: Kemp, 894 F.3d 900, 909-10 (8th Cir. 2018); Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 

807, 815 (8th Cir. 2008); Lewis, 486 F.3d at 1029. 

A. Similarly Situated 

 As to the first requirement, it is well settled that the “two groups must be similarly situated 

in all relevant respects.” Gilani v. Matthews, 843 F.3d 342, 348 (8th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); 

Carter v. Arkansas, 392 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). The parties agree both 

Plaintiff and Rothenberger were class I inmates with excellent disciplinary histories, who held 

inside jobs before they were released from investigative review status without any disciplinary 

charges being filed against them. However, according to the evidence now in the record, that is 

where the similarities end. Prior to his reassignment, Plaintiff held the position of a school porter, 

which is a seasonable job that does not require any advanced training or technical skills. (Doc. 

No. 43-1.) School porters complete clerical tasks and are responsible for keeping the classroom 

neat and orderly. (Id.) They do not tutor or have any teaching responsibilities, and thus, empty 

school porter positions are easily filled by other inmates. (Id.) In contrast, the camera men on the 

maintenance crew must ensure all security cameras in the unit are working properly. (Id.) It is a 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 6 of 10
7 

year-round, technical job that requires specialized electrical training, and empty positions are not 

easily filled. (Id.) Thus, the undisputed facts demonstrate Plaintiff and Rothenberger were not 

similarly situated in all relevant respects. In re Kemp, 894 F.3d at 909 (“Absent a threshold 

showing that she is similarly situated to those who allegedly receive favorable treatment, the 

plaintiff does not have a viable equal protection claim”); Klinger v. Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d 727, 

731 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Dissimilar treatment of dissimilarly situated persons does not violate equal 

protection”). 

 In an effort to establish dissimilar treatment based on race, Plaintiff points to several other 

Caucasian inmates he believes were treated more favorably than him. (Doc. Nos. 2, 43-2, 46.) 

However, none of them are valid comparators because they were not similarly situated to Plaintiff 

in all relevant respects. For instance, in September of 2016, inmate Peeler was allowed to return 

to his position as a school porter after being released from investigative status. (Doc. Nos. 43-1, 

49-1, 49-2.) However, unlike Plaintiff, it is undisputed that school was in session when Peeler 

appeared before the Classification Committee.3

 (Id.) In July 2017, Defendants returned inmate 

Billets to his inside position as an HVAC technician after he was released from investigative status 

without any disciplinary charges being filed against him. (Doc. No. 43-1.) But, in contrast to 

Plaintiff, Billets had extensive technical training and experience, there were only two inmate 

HVAC technicians at the EARU at that time, and his services were needed to maintain the unit’s 

conditioning system, which was often malfunctioning in the hot summer months.4

 (Id.) Plaintiff 

 

3

 In his deposition, Plaintiff said he believed his school porter position was filled, in August or 

September 2016, by a Caucasian inmate named Glass. (Doc. No. 43-1.) However, EARU records 

demonstrate Peeler and Plaintiff were the only two school porters at the EARU from May to the 

end of September 2016. (Doc. Nos. 49-1, 49-2.) 

4 Chandler, who was the other inmate HVAC technician, lost his job after being convicted of a 

disciplinary infraction for getting into an altercation with Billets, and he was transferred to another 

ADC unit. (Doc. No. 43-1.) Thus, he was not similarly situated to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 7 of 10
8 

also refers to inmates Burnett and Davidson, who were allowed to return to their inside positions 

as a school porter and boiler technician (respectively), after being convicted of disciplinary 

infractions. (Doc. Nos. 43-2, 46.) However, unlike Plaintiff, both men regained their positions 

only after serving eleven to twelve months in disciplinary segregation, losing their class, and 

working their way back to their prior positions. (Doc. No. 43-1.) In particular, Plaintiff admits 

Davidson spent a year on field duty before he was returned to his inside position in the boiler room. 

(Doc. No. 43-1.) Thus, I conclude Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence Defendants treated him 

differently from inmates who were similarly situated to him in all relevant respects. 

 B. Purposeful Racial Discrimination 

 As to the second prong of the analysis, Plaintiff has not identified “affirmative evidence” 

from which a jury could find intentional or purposeful racial discrimination. Lewis, 486 F.3d at 

1028; see also Patel, 515 F.3d at 815-816. To the contrary, the parties agree Defendants originally 

intended to return Plaintiff to the school porter position until one of the Classification Committee 

members mentioned school was not in session. (Doc. Nos. 43-1, 43-2.) Plaintiff believes his field 

utility assignment was racially motivated, improper punishment, and a violation of ADC rules.5

 

But, ADC Admin. Dir. 13-55 provides all inmates without medical restrictions, including class 1 

inmates with excellent disciplinary histories such as Plaintiff, can be assigned to the hoe squad or 

field utility duty “as a matter of institutional need.” (Doc. No. 43-3 at 2). In June 2016, 20 of the 

 

Billets’s position could have been filled by two other inmates, Dunsworth and Meyers, who 

allegedly had HVAC training prior to being incarcerated. (Doc. No. 46.) However, that 

information was not in either inmate’s prison file and there is no evidence Defendants Warner or 

Dycus were aware of their prior training. (Doc. No. 43-1.) 

5

 Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to require prison officials to comply with internal 

policies and procedures. Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003). However, a prisoner 

official’s failure to comply with an internal rule or policy could be considered as evidence of 

discriminatory intent. 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 8 of 10
9 

124 inmates working in the EARU field were class 1. (Doc. No. 43-1.) Further, 71 of the 124 

field workers were Caucasian and 53 were African American. (Id.) Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s 

unsupported assertion, there is no evidence that African American inmates were disproportionately 

assigned to work outside in the fields or that his temporary assignment there was racially 

motivated. 

 I am not unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s frustration with losing his school porter position after 

being released from investigative status. And, I commend him on maintaining an excellent 

disciplinary history. Had his argument with Rothenberger occurred while school was in session, 

it is likely Plaintiff would have been returned to his school porter position. However, as previously 

explained, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be assigned to a particular job. There is 

no evidence Defendants Warner or Dycus treated Plaintiff differently than similarly situated 

prisoners or that they acted with a racial animus when they temporarily reassigned him to field 

utility duty to help harvest the summer crops. Because the evidence viewed in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff does not establish a violation of his equal protection rights, I conclude 

Defendants Warner and Dycus are entitled to qualified immunity, and I recommend Plaintiff’s 

equal protection claim against them be dismissed with prejudice. 

V. CONCLUSION

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Defendants’ Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 43) be GRANTED 

and that Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Defendants Dycus and Warner in their individual 

capacities be dismissed with prejudice. 

 2. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis 

appeal from an Order adopting this recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 9 of 10
10 

be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this 6th day of May 2019. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:17-cv-00216-KGB Document 50 Filed 05/06/19 Page 10 of 10