United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2784

___________

Larry A. Eaton, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Robert Dooley, Warden, Springfield *

State Prison, individually and in his * [UNPUBLISHED]

official capacity; Darrel Sylkhuis, *

Colonel, individually and in his official *

capacity; Michael Muller, Unit *

Manager, individually and in his *

official capacity; Lee Kaufenberg, *

Guard, individually and in his official *

capacity; William Janklow, Governor *

of the State of South Dakota; Jeff *

Bloomberg, Secretary, South Dakota *

Department of Corrections; Douglas *

Weber, Warden, South Dakota State *

Penitentiary, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 4, 2000

 Filed: August 9, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________
1The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Larry A. Eaton, a South Dakota inmate, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit

alleging claims for (1) denial of access to the courts based on closure of his prison’s

law library in favor of providing contract attorneys to assist inmates with their legal

needs, and (2) retaliation based on his having filed lawsuits both for himself and for

other inmates. He now appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, see Rouse v.

Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), we affirm.

We agree with the District Court that defendants were entitled to qualified

immunity from damages in their individual capacities, as it was objectively reasonable

for defendants to institute and implement a new inmate legal-assistance program. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352-53 (1996) (envisioning that experimental inmate

legal program would remain in place until an inmate could show nonfrivolous legal

claim had been frustrated); Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861, 869 (8th Cir. 1998) (in

determining whether qualified immunity applies, objective reasonableness of

defendants’ actions must be assessed in light of clearly established law when action

occurred).

As to the official-capacity claims, we also agree with the Court that Eaton failed

to establish that his own lawsuits were dismissed because of the challenged legal

services. See Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 107 F.3d 609, 617 (8th Cir. 1997)

(based on principles of standing, inmate must prove actual injury to prevail); Hamm v.

Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112 (8th Cir. 1994) (inmate cannot bring denial-of-access claim

on behalf of another inmate who is able to bring such claim in his own name). Further,

we find Eaton’s retaliation claim based on his jailhouse lawyering fails, because
-3-

inmates have no constitutional right to assist other inmates in filing lawsuits. See

Rouse, 193 F.3d at 941. As to his claim that he was transferred and his property was

confiscated in retaliation for filing his own lawsuits, Eaton did not show that the

transfer would not have occurred but for the lawsuits, see id. at 940; a pre-transfer

hearing was not required, see Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1337-38 (8th Cir. 1997);

and Eaton’s property was confiscated because it violated prison policies based on

space limitations and security, see Herlein v. Higgins, 172 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir.

1999) (prison policies survive constitutional challenge if reasonably related to

legitimate penological interest). 

We also deny Eaton’s post-appeal motion.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.