United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1483

___________________________

Matthew W. Barnett

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Dexter Payne,

Assistant Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Peggy S. Durham,

Grievance Coordinator, Arkansas Department of Correction; R. Ramsey,

Classification Member, Grimes Unit, ADC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Grimes Correctional Unit

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Pearce,ClassificationMember,GrimesUnit,ADC;ArkansasDepartment ofCorrection

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville

____________

 Submitted: October 5, 2017

Filed: October 11, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Barnett, currently incarcerated at the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas

Department ofCorrection (ADC), appealsfollowing the district court’s1

adverse grant

of judgment on the pleadings. Barnett brought this pro se action against the ADC and

various ADC employees, asserting violations of the Due Process Clause, Equal

Protection Clause, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA). He alleged that from January 2015 until

November 2016 he was denied consideration for the ADC’s work-release program

because he suffers from grand-mal seizures and that defendants’ justification—that

histransfer eligibility (TE) date had passed and he wasscheduled to appear before the

parole board in October 2016—was a pretext for disability discrimination. On

appeal, Barnett argues that the district court erred in granting judgment prior to

discovery, in dismissing each of his claims, and in denying his postjudgment motion

to join additional parties.

For the following reasons, we affirm. See Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 293

(8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). First, ruling on the motion was not premature.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (party may move for judgment on pleadings after pleadings

are closed). Second, we agree with the district court that Barnett’s due-process claim

failed because he lacks a protected liberty interest in being considered for work

release. See Mahfouz v. Lockhart, 826 F.2d 791, 793-94 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

1The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

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

Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
His equal-protection claim likewise failed because he did not identify differential

treatment of similarly situated individuals. See Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 614

F.3d 495, 500 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, to state an equal-protection claim,

plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendants treated them differently from similarly

situated individuals).

As to the ADA and RA claims, after careful review of the pleadings, we hold

that Barnett did not plead sufficient facts to support a plausible inference that he was

denied consideration for work release because of his disability, rather than because

he was about to appear for a parole hearing. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678,

682 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state claim that is

plausible on its face; as between an “obvious alternative explanation” and the

purposeful, invidious discrimination Iqbal asked Court to infer, discrimination was

not a plausible conclusion); De Boise v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 760 F.3d 892, 899 (8th Cir.

2014) (Title II plaintiff must demonstrate that he is a qualified individual with a

disability who was denied participation in or the benefits of services, programs, or

activities of a public entity because of his disability). Finally, we conclude that the

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barnett’s joinder motion. See Int’l Bhd.

of Teamsters v. Commercial Warehouse Co., 84 F.3d 299, 302 (8th Cir. 1996)

(standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-