Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03237/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03237-0/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. 09-3237

___________

Billy Scales, *

*

 Plaintiff – Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Marva Davis, Special Administrator, *

individually and in official capacity; * Appeal from the United States

Randy Manus, Assistant Warden, Pine * District Court for the 

Bluff Unit, ADC, individually and in * Eastern District of Arkansas.

official capacity; Mark Taylor, *

Supervisor of Work Release Program, *

Pine Bluff Unit, ADC, individually *

and in official capacity; Marvin * [UNPUBLISHED]

Evans, Warden, Pine Bluff Unit, *

in official capacity, *

* 

Defendants – Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 16, 2010

Filed: May 3, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 09-3237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660567
1

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

Eastern District of Arkansas, presiding.

-2-

Billy Scales filed this action against officials of the Arkansas Department of

Correction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charging them with violating his

constitutional right to due process by removing him from a work release program

without a hearing and then transferring him to another prison unit after he filed a

grievance about the incident. The district court1

 granted summary judgment to the

officials. 

After careful de novo review, see Carraher v. Target Corp., 503 F.3d 714, 716

(8th Cir. 2007), we agree in all respects with the well reasoned opinion of the

magistrate judge. Scales had no constitutionally cognizable liberty interest in

remaining in the work release program, for he was incarcerated at the time and his

removal did not amount to an atypical condition of confinement or lengthen his

imprisonment. See Callender v. Sioux City Residential Treatment Facility, 88 F.3d

666, 668–69 (8th Cir. 1996). Nor could he assert a protectable liberty interest in

having the ADC officials follow their own regulations or policies. See Phillips v.

Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, since Scales has produced

no evidence identifying any official responsible for his transfer, his retaliation claim

fails as a matter of law. See Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660567