Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01710/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01710-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1710

___________

Robert L. Kern, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Scott Francik, Employed as * Southern District of Iowa.

Correctional Counselor at Anamosa *

State Penitentiary; John Ault, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Employed as Warden (now ex-warden) *

at Anamosa State Penitentiary; John *

Fayram, Employed as Deputy Warden *

at Anamosa State Penitentiary; Jerry *

Connolly, Hospital Administrative *

Director of Nursing at Anamosa State *

Penitentiary; Christopher Meeks, was *

Employed as Deputy Director of *

Corrections, Central Office, 510 East *

12th Street, Suite 3, Des Moines, IA *

50319; William Sperfslage, Employed *

as Deputy Warden at Iowa State *

Penitentiary; Dennis W. Brumbaugh, *

Employed as a Unit Manager in *

Cellhouse 419 at the Iowa State *

Penitentiary; Richard Larkin, Employed *

as a Correctional Counselor at *

Cellhouse 419 at the Iowa State *

Penitentiary, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 09-1710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631232
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-

___________

Submitted: January 28, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Robert Lee Kern appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliatory transfer.

Reviewing de novo, see Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review), we agree with the district court that the summary judgment

record did not support a claim of retaliatory transfer, see Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d 749,

752 (8th Cir. 1996) (“In a retaliatory transfer case, ‘the burden is on the prisoner to

prove that but for an unconstitutional, retaliatory motive the transfer would not have

occurred.’” (citation omitted)). Additionally, we find no merit to Kern’s appellate

arguments that his counsel was ineffective, see Watson v. Moss, 619 F.2d 775, 776

(8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (no right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case),

and that he was not afforded sufficient discovery, see Pony Computer, Inc. v. Equus

Computer Sys. of Mo., 162 F.3d 991, 996 (8th Cir. 1998) (where plaintiff moved to

compel but failed to explain how additional discovery would provide support for any

of its claims, district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment

on record without further discovery). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631232