Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02455/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02455-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2455

___________

Michael T. Manuel, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Claude Kirk; Tim Shockley; Reed * Western District of Missouri.

Very; James Killion; John Doe; Mike *

Taggart; Bryan Goeke; J. C. Steel, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 26, 2004

Filed: November 30, 2003

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael T. Manuel appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action claiming defendant prison personnel violated his Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by placing him in administrative segregation for a rule violation

Appellate Case: 04-2455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2004 Entry ID: 1839036 
-2-

without following proper procedures, denying him due process in handling his prison

grievances, raising his custody level, and transferring him to a more secure facility.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

and we conclude dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court stated. See

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-86 (1995) (only liberty interest in prison is

freedom from restraint which creates atypical and significant hardship, and

administrative segregation, in itself, is neither); Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847

(8th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in having prison officials follow prison

regulations); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (no

liberty interest in having prison officials process grievances according to grievance

procedures); see also Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) (Due Process

Clause does not require any hearing in connection with transfers to another prison);

Carney v. Houston, 33 F.3d 893, 894 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (no liberty interest

in particular prison classification); Phillips, 320 F.3d at 848 (Eighth Amendment

violation requires showing that defendants inflicted pain unnecessarily and wantonly,

caused deprivation denying minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, were

deliberately indifferent to health and safety, and acted maliciously to cause harm).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2004 Entry ID: 1839036