Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02859/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02859-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Crosby
Appellee
Dave Dormire
Appellee
Billy Galloway
Appellee
Brian Geoke
Appellee
Henry Jackson
Appellee
Lisa Jones
Appellee
Jerry McCauley
Appellant
Marian Ortbals
Appellee
Mark Schreiber
Appellee
Tami Surface
Appellee
David Webster
Appellee
Arthur Woods
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2859

___________

Jerry McCauley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Dave Dormire; Arthur Woods; *

David Webster; Mark Schreiber; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Billy Galloway; Jim Crosby; *

Marian Ortbals; Henry Jackson; *

Tami Surface; Lisa Jones; Brian Geoke, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 20, 2007

Filed: August 24, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Jerry McCauley appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. McCauley has moved to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant IFP status, affirm in part, and

reverse in part.

Appellate Case: 06-2859 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2007 Entry ID: 3344898
-2-

In prison disciplinary proceedings, McCauley was convicted of conduct

violations for escape and fraud. As a result, he was placed in disciplinary segregation.

In a complaint and amended complaint (filed with leave of court) McCauley claimed

that the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings violated his due process and equal

protection rights, and that the disciplinary convictions were not supported by “some

evidence.” McCauley also alleged that defendants Dave Dormire, Arthur Woods,

David Webster, Jim Crosby, Marian Ortbals, and Lisa Jones--notwithstanding their

knowledge that the disciplinary charges were false--were involved in issuing the

disciplinary charges, allowing them to proceed, and convicting McCauley, and that

these defendants acted in retaliation for McCauley’s protest of a plan to rotate library

law clerks (of which McCauley was one) and his refusal to quit voluntarily after the

plan was overruled; for exercising his right to remain silent when questioned by

institutional investigators; and for writing letters of complaint to state officials. As

evidence of retaliatory motive, McCauley pointed to alleged statements made by some

defendants that they would teach him not to complain, and that they were going to

“get rid” of all law clerks who complained. McCauley further alleged that members

of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole violated his rights by denying him

parole based on the “bogus” escape violation.

Finally, McCauley also alleged that defendants Dormire, Woods, and Tami

Surface (1) confiscated McCauley’s legal materials, including his copy of a responsive

pleading from the Missouri Attorney General’s office--filed in McCauley’s state

proceeding in which he had petitioned to overturn his conviction--and (2) denied him

meaningful access to the prison law library and the assistance of prison law clerks.

Accordingly, McCauley alleged, he was prevented from preparing a reply prior to the

decision to deny his state petition, which resulted in the petition being denied.

We agree with the district court that McCauley did not state a due process claim

based on his prosecution and punishment for the disciplinary charges, see Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-86 (1995); Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th

Appellate Case: 06-2859 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2007 Entry ID: 3344898
-3-

Cir. 2002) (this court has consistently held that administrative and disciplinary

segregation are not atypical and significant hardships that would trigger due process

protections as described in Sandin), and that he had no liberty interest in the

possibility of parole, see Adams v. Agniel, 405 F.3d 643, 645 (8th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (Missouri parole statutes create no liberty interest under state law in parole

board’s discretionary decisions). We also agree that McCauley’s allegations did not

state an equal protection claim. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 984

(8th Cir. 2004) (to succeed on equal protection claim, inmate must show he is treated

differently than similarly situated class of inmates, and that different treatment

burdens fundamental right and bears no rational relation to any legitimate penal

interest).

We conclude, however, that McCauley stated a retaliatory-discipline claim,

based on his allegations that defendants made statements suggesting a retaliatory

motive, that they knew he had not committed the rule infraction, and that the

conviction was not supported by “some evidence.” See Moore v. Plaster, 266 F.3d

928, 931-33 (8th Cir. 2001) (retaliatory-discipline claim may proceed where

disciplinary action is not supported by “some evidence”); Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734,

738 (8th Cir. 1993) (prison officials cannot impose disciplinary sanction against

prisoner in retaliation for prisoner’s exercise of constitutional right). We also

conclude that, at this early procedural stage, McCauley’s allegations were sufficient

to state an access-to-courts claim. See White v. Kautzky, Nos. 05-3750/06-1791,

2007 WL 2033335 at *2-3 (8th Cir. July 17, 2007) (to prove violation of right of

meaningful access to courts, prisoner must establish state has not provided opportunity

to litigate claim, which resulted in actual injury; to prove actual injury, prisoner must

demonstrate that nonfrivolous legal claim had been frustrated or was being impeded);

Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir. 2006) (reversing dismissal of

access-to-courts claim where prison employees allegedly diminished prisoner’s access

to prison law library to point of being non-existent, causing him to lose custodial

credit time because of inability to research and prepare for court hearing; prisoner

Appellate Case: 06-2859 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2007 Entry ID: 3344898
-4-

states access-to-courts claim when he alleges denial of access to legal materials caused

potentially meritorious claim to fail).

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of McCauley’s retaliatory-discipline

claim as to defendants Dormire, Woods, Webster, Crosby, Ortbals, and Jones; and we

reverse the dismissal of his access-to-courts claims as to defendants Dormire, Woods,

and Surface. In all other respects and as to all other defendants, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2859 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/24/2007 Entry ID: 3344898