Earnest v. Courtney, 94-3702

Decision Date23 August 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-3702,94-3702
Citation64 F.3d 365
PartiesRicky EARNEST, Appellant, v. Nuby G. COURTNEY; Kelvin L. Murphy; Shirley McCoy, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Ricky Earnest, pro se.

Clementine Infante, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Earnest, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment to defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We affirm.

Earnest had a major disciplinary written against him by Work Release Supervisor Shirley McCoy, charging him with gambling after Earnest and other inmates were caught with a football pool. The next day, Earnest filed a grievance against McCoy. Earnest alleged that the following day he was questioned about the grievance and the football pool by Assistant Warden Kelvin L. Murphy. On that same day, Murphy reduced Earnest's charge to a minor disciplinary. Earnest was subsequently found guilty on the disciplinary based on McCoy's disciplinary report and information provided by confidential informants. He was sentenced to two hours extra duty by the hearing officer, and reassigned from community service employment to the utility work squad for thirty days. Earnest alleged that Warden Nuby G. Courtney, Murphy, and McCoy violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because his reassignment from his community service employment to the utility work squad was in retaliation for his grievance against McCoy. He also alleged that his assignment to the utility work squad violated his Eighth Amendment rights because of the conditions in which he was forced to work.

Defendants moved for summary judgment. They submitted a copy of the major disciplinary citation written by McCoy and the affidavits of each of the defendants. In her affidavit, McCoy attested that in determining Earnest ran the football pool, she questioned all the inmates named in the pool and "several" confidential informants.

The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that Earnest was precluded from arguing he had been retaliated against, because he had been convicted of a disciplinary that was supported by some evidence. The court relied on McCoy's affidavit and disciplinary report to determine that the confidential informants' information was sufficiently reliable and constituted some evidence. The court also concluded that Earnest had not shown he was incapable of performing the outside work, and that the conditions he described did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. Earnest timely appealed, and argues that the district court misconstrued the basis of his retaliation claim.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court: whether the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Mumford v. Godfried, 52 F.3d 756, 759 (8th Cir.1995).

Earnest's retaliation claim is precluded because the punishment in question was imposed against him based on an actual violation of prison rules. See Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir.1994), ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Hancock v. Thalacker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • July 9, 1996
    ...allegedly retaliatory punishment was imposed against the prisoner on the basis of an actual violation of prison rules. Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir.1995) (retaliation claim, asserting retaliation for filing a grievance, failed where the punishment imposed was for an actual......
  • Liggins v. Barnett, No. 4-00-CV-90080 (S.D. Iowa 5/15/2001)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • May 15, 2001
    ...Defendants' evidence that he was in fact convicted of the disciplinary violation that Barnett reported. See Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (retaliation claim precluded if punishment was based on actual violation of prison rules); Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.......
  • Moore v. Plaster
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 20, 2001
    ...containing abusive language was "some evidence" of a violation of a rule against using abusive language); Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (officer's affidavit, disciplinary report, and reliable confidential informants were "some evidence" of a rule violati......
  • Lawyer v. City of Council Bluffs
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 26, 2004
    ...that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365, 366-67 (8th Cir.1995). A. The Lawyers argue that Clark violated their clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment by searching the re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT