1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

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

Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3516

___________

Earnest Conrod, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas

United States Bureau of Prisons, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2005

Filed: October 25, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Earnest Conrod, Jr., a federal inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered

in the District Court1

 for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting summary judgment

to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in Conrod’s Privacy Act action, in which he alleged

that defendants falsely labeled him as a gang member in his inmate central file in

retaliation for his refusal to have his court-ordered fine deducted from his prison
-2-

wages. He also appeals from the district court’s denial of his postjudgment motion

for reconsideration. For reversal, he argues that he proved a prima facie violation of

the Privacy Act. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

Upon de novo review, see Hallgren v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 331 F.3d

588, 589 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude that Conrod did not demonstrate that the BOP

willfully and intentionally failed to maintain records in a manner reasonably

necessary to assure fairness. See Deters v. United States Parole Comm’n, 85 F.3d

655, 657 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (describing elements of prima facie Privacy Act claim).

Regardless of whether the gang-associate reference was inaccurate, we see no

evidence that the BOP included the reference with the requisite intent and wilfulness.

Conrod tried to connect his refusal to pay his fine with the inclusion of the gang

reference some three months later, but neither the prison staff member who overheard

Conrod speaking with other gang associates about an assault, nor the person who

wrote an internal report that named Conrod as one of sixty inmates involved in a gang

disturbance, was involved in the fine-payment dispute. Further, after Conrod was

named as a gang associate in the internal report, subsequent transfer memoranda

merely restated what this report had said. See id. at 660 (agency acts in intentional

or willful manner by committing act without grounds for believing it to be lawful or

by flagrantly disregarding others’ rights under Privacy Act); Laningham v. United

States Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (violation must be

so patently egregious and unlawful that anyone undertaking conduct should have

known it unlawful). 

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Conrod’s motion for reconsideration. See Parton v. White, 203 F.3d 552, 556 (8th

Cir.) (per curiam) (standard of review), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 963 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________