Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04122/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04122-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4122

___________

Harvey J. Cass, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Harold W. Clarke; Michael L. Kenney; * District Court for the

Joseph Wilson; Darla Ziesset; Frank X. * District of Nebraska.

Hopkins; M. Rose-Seeman, also known *

as Mikki Kirkpatrick; Fred Britten; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Mike Johanns; Jane Grabenstein- *

Chandler; Jeff Utecht; Bruce Kramer; *

Teresa Predmore, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 24, 2006

Filed: December 4, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harvey J. Cass, a former Nebraska prisoner, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Cass sought damages for

Appellate Case: 05-4122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2006 Entry ID: 2114713
-2-

alleged due process violations stemming from a misconduct report filed against him

and the resulting disciplinary proceedings and punishment, which included the loss

of 90 days of good-time credit. Upon de novo review, see Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d

844, 846 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review), we affirm the grant of summary

judgment for defendants. 

We agree with the district court that Cass’s due process challenges to the prison

disciplinary proceedings fail. First, Cass had no actionable claim against appellee

Joseph Wilson for filing an allegedly false misconduct report, see Sprouse v. Babcock,

870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (filing of false disciplinary report against inmate is

not itself actionable), and his contention on appeal that Wilson filed the report in

retaliation was not raised below and we decline to address it here, see Stone v. Harry,

364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider new allegations on

appeal). Second, appellee Darla Ziesset’s failure to follow state law and conduct an

independent investigation did not violate Cass’s federal due process rights, see

Phillips, 320 F.3d at 847 (there is no federal constitutional liberty interest in having

state officers follow state law or prison officials follow prison regulations),

particularly when Supreme Court precedent does not mandate an investigation, see

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (establishing minimum due process

requirements for prison disciplinary hearings). Third, appellee Mike Kenney’s ability

to delegate the approval of the loss of good time to appellee Fred Britten is likewise

purely a question of state law, lacking any federal or constitutional implication as

required to be actionable in this section 1983 suit; and in any event, this is an issue

that the Nebraska courts have resolved in appellees’ favor, see Martin v. Neb. Dep’t

of Corr. Servs., 671 N.W.2d 613, 619-20 (duty to approve forfeiture of good time may

be delegated to subordinate officials). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2006 Entry ID: 2114713