Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02634/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02634-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd Ball
Appellee
Danny Burl
Appellee
Essie Clay
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
Lathan Ester
Appellee
Joanna Franklin
Appellee
Ray Hobbs
Appellee
Larry Mays
Appellee
Takelia McDaniel
Appellee
Justine Minor
Appellee
Raymond Naylor
Appellee
Alan Cole Onstad
Appellant
Dexter Payne
Appellee
Lorrie Taylor
Appellee
Keith Waddle
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2634

___________________________

Alan Cole Onstad

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Larry Mays, Deputy

Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Todd Ball, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit,

ADC; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC;

Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, Arkansas Department of

Correction; John Doe, Disciplinary Hearing Judges, Arkansas Department of

Correction; Joanna Franklin, Arkansas Department of Correction (originally sued

as Doe); Takelia McDaniel; Keith Waddle, Arkansas Department of Correction

(originally named as John Doe); Lathan Ester, Arkansas Department of Correction

(originally named as John Doe); Essie Clay, Arkansas Department of Correction

(originally named as John Doe); Lorrie Taylor, Arkansas Department of

Correction (originally named as John Doe); Justine Minor, Arkansas Department

of Correction (originally named as John Doe)

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: February 20, 2015

 Filed: June 5, 2015

[Unpublished] 

Appellate Case: 14-2634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2015 Entry ID: 4282543 
____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Alan Onstad appeals the adverse grant ofsummary judgment

by the district court in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging (1) he suffered due

1

process violations, because he was not permitted to call a witness at his disciplinary

hearings; (2) he was charged with disciplinary violations in retaliation for exercising

his constitutional rights; and (3) he suffered cruel and unusual punishment, because

he was confined under constant 24-hour lighting. Upon careful de novo review, see

Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927, 937 (8th Cir. 2013), we affirm.

First, we agree with the district court that Onstad did not allege that he had

suffered a deprivation of liberty sufficient to implicate his due process rights. See

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 485-86 (1995) (to state due process claim, prisoner

must allege deprivation of liberty in way that imposes atypical and significant

hardship in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life). We also agree that Onstad’s

retaliatory-discipline claim fails, because the record indicates he was found guilty of

one of three charged rules violations arising out of a single incident. See Hartsfield

v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2008) (defendant may successfully defend

retaliatory-discipline claim by showing “some evidence” inmate actually committed

rule violation; report from correctional officer, even if disputed by inmate and

supported by no other evidence, suffices as “some evidence” if found by impartial

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

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

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2015 Entry ID: 4282543 
decisionmaker); Cowans v. Warren, 150 F.3d 910, 912 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)

(where inmate has violated actual prison rule, no retaliation claim can be stated).

Finally, we conclude that defendant Danny Burl--the only defendant Onstad

directly implicated in his constant-illumination claim--is entitled to qualified

immunity as to that claim. See Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir.

2013) (court of appeals may affirm on any basis supported by record). In prior cases,

we found no constitutional violation when prison officials subjected prisoners to

constant lighting in circumstances where, as here, defendants proffered an

explanation for why it was necessary. See Ferguson v. Cape Girardeau Cnty., 88 F.3d

647, 650 (8th Cir. 1996); O’Donnell v. Thomas, 826 F.3d 788, 790 (8th Cir. 1987). 

Thus, Onstad did not show thatBurl violated a clearly established constitutional right

of which a reasonable person would have known. See Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct.

1861, 1866 (2014) (per curiam) (officials are shielded fromliability for civil damages

if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which reasonable person

would have known); cf. Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1057-60 (9th Cir.

2013) (it was not clearly established thatsubjecting prison inmate to 24-hour lighting

violated Eighth Amendment, and thus prison officials were entitled to qualified

immunity, where record showed officials used lighting for penological purpose).

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

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2634 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2015 Entry ID: 4282543