Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01212/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01212-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Shawn Deaton
Appellant
Fredrick D. Gilbert
Appellee
Grant Harris
Appellee
Moses Jackson
Appellee
Jim Smith
Appellee
Mark Stevens
Appellee
Randy Watson
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1212

___________________________

Christopher Shawn Deaton,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Jim Smith, Auditor, Compliance Division of the Board of Corrections; Randy

Watson, Warden, Varner Supermax, ADC; Moses Jackson, Deputy Warden,

Varner Supermax, ADC; Mark Stevens, Commander, Varner Supermax, ADC;

Fredrick D. Gilbert, Corporal, Varner Supermax, ADC; Grant Harris, Chief

Deputy, ADC,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

 Submitted: July 5, 2016

Filed: July 26, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

Appellate Case: 16-1212 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Entry ID: 4430103 
PER CURIAM.

Christopher Deaton brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged that,

while he was an inmate at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction,

officials enforced grooming policy in a manner that constituted “calculated

harassment unrelated to prison needs,” and amounted to “blackmail.” He also

complained that officials moved him to punitive housing in retaliation for filing a

grievance, and demonstrated deliberate indifference to his health and safety. He

appeals after the district court dismissed certain claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 1

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and granted summary judgment for

defendants on the merits as to the remaining claims. Upon careful de novo review of

the record, and consideration of the parties’ submissions on appeal, we find no basis

for reversal. Unlike the inmate plaintiff in Scher v. Engelke, 943 F.2d 921, 924 (8th

Cir. 1991), who established a claim of “calculated harassment” in violation of the

Eighth Amendment when guards conducted numerous unnecessary searches and

confiscated property in retaliation for the inmate reporting misconduct by another

guard, Deaton was in violation of a prison grooming policy when officials enforced,

or threatened to enforce, the rules against him. Deaton’s retaliation claim under the

First Amendment fails in light of circuit precedent, because there wassome evidence

that he was in violation of the grooming policy. Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526

(8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); see Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir.

2008). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations ofthe HonorableBeth

Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1212 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Entry ID: 4430103 
KELLY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur as to all issues raised on appeal, with one exception. I respectfully

disagree with the suggestion that Scher v. Engelke precludes an Eighth Amendment

calculated harassment claim merely because a prisoner is actually in violation of a

particular prison policy. 943 F.2d at 924 (holding that the evidence regarding the

searches of Scher’s prison cell showed a “pattern of calculated harassment unrelated

to prison needs from which the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that prisoners are

protected.”). Because I believe Deaton’s Eighth Amendment claim has not been

properly addressed, I would reverse and remand for further consideration ofthis claim

only.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1212 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2016 Entry ID: 4430103