Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01311/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01311-0/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. 04-1311

___________

Napoleon Hartsfield, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Department of Corrections; Gary D. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Maynard, Director, Iowa Department *

of Corrections; Warden Mathes; *

Ronald G. Welder; John Spence; Col. *

Emmett; Lt. Author Anderson; D. W. *

Sperfslage; Louis Galloway; Debbie *

Nichols; Anne Gehle, C/O; Charles *

Harper; Charlie Hourihan; Waddell, *

C/O; Sgt. Barnes; D. DeGrange; Case, *

C/O; Inmate Peterson, #805282; John *

Doe; Inmate Confidential Informant; *

John and Jane Does, 1 through 8 sued *

in their individual and official *

capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2004

Filed: August 5, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 04-1311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796243 
-2-

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Napoleon Hartsfield appeals the district court’s preservice

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hartsfield claimed that defendants denied

him due process, equal protection, and free speech; retaliated against him for filing

a grievance and administrative appeals; had a policy and practice of retaliating against

inmates who exercised their free-speech rights, fabricating incident reports, and

encouraging correctional officers to falsify log book entries; and conspired to violate

his rights. The district court dismissed his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

We grant Hartsfield leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, but deny his

motion for appointment of counsel. Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200

F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that

Hartsfield failed to state a due process claim, as he has no liberty interest in a

particular classification and his segregation did not impose an atypical and significant

hardship, see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Kennedy v.

Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 642 n.2, 643 (8th Cir. 1996); cf. Moody v. Daggett, 429

U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (federal prisoner has no statutory or constitutional entitlement

to classification). His equal protection claim also fails because he did not allege

invidiously dissimilar treatment. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979,

982-83 (8th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the allegations regarding certain policies and

practices were too broad and conclusory to state a claim, and Hartsfield did not set

out sufficient facts to support the conspiracy’s existence. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189

F.3d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th

Cir. 1993) (per curiam). 

For the most part, we also conclude that Hartsfield’s free-speech and retaliation

claims fail because he did not offer anything beyond conclusory allegations of

retaliatory classification or show any violation of his First Amendment rights. See

Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d at 785. We conclude the district court erred, however,

Appellate Case: 04-1311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796243 
-3-

in dismissing the claim that defendant Charlie Hourihan wrote a retaliatory

misconduct report against Hartsfield. Hartsfield’s allegations, which must be

accepted as true at this stage, reflect that he engaged in no misconduct, that Hourihan

wrote the false misconduct report after Hartsfield announced his intention to file a

grievance against Hourihan, and that Hourihan did so because he knew the

misconduct report would prevent the processing of the grievance. See Gordon v.

Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to state claim unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can

prove no set of facts that would demonstrate entitlement to relief; complaint

allegations are accepted as true and are construed in light most favorable to plaintiff);

Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (filing of false disciplinary

charge against inmate is actionable under § 1983 if done in retaliation for inmate’s

having filed grievance pursuant to established procedures, because such retaliation

interferes with inmate’s access to grievance procedure); cf. Royal v. Kautzky, No. 02-

3446, 2004 WL 1574434, at *2 (8th Cir. July 15, 2004) (in retaliation case, holding

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) does not bar recovery of nominal and punitive damages, or

declaratory and injunctive relief, even absent any compensable injury); Dixon v.

Brown, 38 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1994) (inmate need not show separate, independent

injury as element of retaliation case; district court improperly granted summary

judgment on ground that disciplinary committee dismissed false disciplinary charge

and inmate was not punished). 

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal except as to the retaliatory-discipline

claim against Hourihan; as to that claim, we remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1311 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2004 Entry ID: 1796243