Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01390/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01390-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Charles Aaron
Appellant
Robert Clark
Appellee
June Lloyd
Appellee
John Maples
Appellee
Larry May
Appellee
Joe Nolen
Appellee
Larry Norris
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1390

___________

Billy Charles Aaron, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Joe Nolen, Major, Grimes Unit, *

ADC; June Lloyd, Disciplinary * [UNPUBLISHED]

Hearing Officer, Grimes Unit, ADC; *

John Maples, Warden, Grimes Unit, *

ADC; Robert Clark, Disciplinary *

Hearing Administrator, ADC; *

Larry Norris, Director, ADC; *

Larry May, Deputy/Assistant *

Director, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2007

Filed: July 9, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-1390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327378
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

-2-

Arkansas inmate Billy Charles Aaron appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal with

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Upon de novo review, see Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995),

we agree with the district court that the retaliatory-discipline claim failed because

Aaron did not show defendant had a retaliatory motive in issuing a major disciplinary,

and some evidence supported the disciplinary hearing officer’s decision that Aaron

had actually committed forgery. See Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1387-89 (8th

Cir. 1995) (noting standard for retaliatory-transfer claim--inmate must show that

impermissible retaliation was actual motivating factor for his transfer--guides

resolution of retaliatory-discipline claim, with distinction that retaliatory-discipline

claim fails if discipline was imposed for actual violation of prison rules). We also

find no merit to the due process claim because Aaron did not show that the time he

spent in punitive segregation as a result of the disciplinary conviction represented an

atypical and significant deprivation, see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 475-76, 483-

86 (1995), and he must seek restoration of his good-time credits in a habeas

proceeding, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 

Finally, we note Aaron’s consent to proceed before the magistrate was not

required, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and we conclude the district court did not

abuse its discretion in disallowing Aaron’s witnesses, particularly when Aaron has not

explained how his requested witnesses would have testified and how their testimony

would have been beneficial to his case, cf. McPheeters v. Black & Veatch Corp., 427

F.3d 1095, 1103-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (trial court’s release of witness was not abuse of

Appellate Case: 06-1390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327378
-3-

discretion where, inter alia, plaintiff gave no indication of substance of witness’s

expected testimony). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

____________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1390 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2007 Entry ID: 3327378