Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04022/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04022-0/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. 06-4022

___________

Carl Davis, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Larry Norris, Director, ADC; Greg * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Essie Clay, *

Disciplinary Hearing Officer, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Larry *

Foster, Correctional Officer I, East * [UNPUBLISHED]

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; George *

Brewer, Classification Administrator, *

ADC; James Gibson, Hearing Officer *

Administrator, ADC; Tameka Cody, *

Disciplinary Office, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Shauntae Hardy, *

Correctional Officer I, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Patricia Green, *

Classification Officer, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Shameka Golet, *

Disciplinary Notifying Officer, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 24, 2007

Filed: July 27, 2007

___________

Appellate Case: 06-4022 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334352
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Carl Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s1

 preservice

dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. 

Upon de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam), we affirm.

We agree with the district court that Davis’s alleged due process violations

resulting from a disciplinary hearing and conviction were cured by its reversal. See

Wycoff v. Nichols, 94 F.3d 1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1996) (reversal of disciplinary case

against prisoner constituted due process prisoner received and it cured alleged due

process violation). We also find no merit to Davis’s claim that he was denied due

process by not being restored to his prior classification status, and enduring the

resulting more restrictive living conditions, as the conditions did not amount to an

“atypical and significant” hardship. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)

(confinement in segregation does not implicate Due Process Clause unless

confinement imposes atypical and significant hardship on inmate in relation to

ordinary prison life); Glick v. Walker, 834 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)

(failure of prison official to properly classify inmate does not amount to constitutional

violation). Finally, as to Davis’s allegation that his conviction resulted in a loss of

good-time credit, Davis must seek relief in a habeas proceeding. See Portley-El v.

Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2002) (§ 1983 claim for damages from prison

discipline that resulted in loss of good-time credits does not arise until inmate has

challenged discipline through habeas proceeding); see also Entzi v. Redmann, 485

Appellate Case: 06-4022 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334352
-3-

F.3d 998, 1003 (8th Cir. 2007) (rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994)--that person challenging loss of sentence-reduction credits must do so through

habeas action--applies even if habeas remedy is no longer available to plaintiff).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

__________________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4022 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2007 Entry ID: 3334352