Court Opinion

ID: 9412728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 15:02:09.258239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:24.126164
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-3152
                      ___________________________

                                 Deverick Scott

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

Dexter Payne, Director, ADC; Marshall Reed, Assistant Director, ADC; Gibson,
   Warden, VSM Unit, ADC; Shipman, Assistant Warden, VSM Unit, ADC;
 Plummer, Captain, VSM Unit, ADC; Carroll, Major, VSM Unit, ADC; Lord,
Lieutenant, VSM Unit, ADC; Jones, Lieutenant, VSM Unit, ADC; Washington,
                         Lieutenant, VSM Unit, ADC

                          lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

     Jonathan Vineyard, Corporal, VSM Unit, ADC (originally Vineyard)

                    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 Whittaker, Corporal, VSM Unit, ADC; Brown, Lieutenant, VSM Unit, ADC;
 Garcia, Sergeant, VSM Unit, ADC; King, Sergeant, VSM Unit, ADC; Gloria
               Thompson, Grievance Officer, VSM Unit, ADC

                          lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
                                  ____________

                  Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                               ____________

                           Submitted: July 27, 2023
                            Filed: August 1, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Jonathan Vineyard, an Arkansas correctional officer, appeals the decision
denying summary judgment on Deverick Scott’s First Amendment retaliation claim.
Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments that we can consider in this
interlocutory appeal, see Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798,
804, 807 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining that our review is de novo, but we cannot
consider sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges), we agree with the district court1
that genuine issues of material fact exist, see Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d
726, 729 (8th Cir. 2003) (looking to whether a person of “ordinary firmness” would
have been chilled); Irving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 451 (8th Cir. 2008)
(recognizing that causing a prisoner to be seen as a “snitch” puts him “in danger of
being assaulted or killed by other inmates”). We accordingly affirm. See 8th Cir.
R. 47B.
                        ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable D. Price Marshall, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, partially adopting the report and
recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate
Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
                                        -2-