Glick v. Walker, 87-2054
| Decision Date | 04 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2054,87-2054 |
| Citation | 834 F.2d 709 |
| Parties | Dennis P. GLICK, Appellant, v. Woodson D. WALKER, Chairman; A.L. Lockhart, Director; Larry Norris, Warden, Tucker Max. Sec. Unit; K. Howell, Records Supervisor, Tucker Max. Sec. Unit, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Dennis P. Glick, pro se.
Lee Taylor Franke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Dennis P. Glick, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction (Department), appeals pro se from the District Court's 1 order granting summary judgment for appellees in this section 1983 action. We affirm.
The essential facts are undisputed. From July through October 1984, Glick received six major disciplinaries and as a result, served a total of eighty-two days in punitive isolation. Subsequently, the Department's Compliance Attorney ruled that an ineligible committee member had been allowed to sit on the major Disciplinary Committee during the months of May through November 1984. This ruling was based on a Department policy, printed in the Inmate's Handbook, requiring all Committee members to have been employed for at least six months in the Department dealing firsthand with inmates. As a result, Director Lockhart instructed Warden Norris to note all disciplinaries heard by the ineligible committee member and take the appropriate reversal action. Norris advised Kay Howell, the records supervisor, of this directive, and reversals were entered in all of the affected disciplinaries. On May 27, 1986, Glick was informed that the above-mentioned six disciplinaries were reversed. However, because he since had received another major disciplinary, his institutional classification and good-time credits were not affected.
Glick claims in the present action against Lockhart, Norris, Howell, and Woodson Walker, Chairman of the Arkansas Board of Correction, that he was denied due process because an ineligible member sat on his disciplinary committee, and because he was not properly reclassified or credited with lost good-time when the disciplinaries were reversed. He also alleges that Howell incorrectly classified him. He seeks compensation for the eighty-two days spent in punitive isolation and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The District Court granted summary judgment for appellees based on its conclusions that (1) the facts established that noncompliance with the six-month eligibility policy was unintentional, and, accordingly, no constitutional violation of inmates' rights was involved, (2) assuming the six-month eligibility policy created a liberty interest, the appellees' violation of this interest was de minimis, and (3) any mistake in classifying Glick pursuant to state law did not amount to a constitutional violation.
On appeal, Glick reasserts his due process claims and also asserts for the first time that the conditions of his punitive confinement violated the Eighth Amendment.
We do not believe that the Department's six-month eligibility policy creates a liberty interest. Moreover, even if a liberty interest were found, the District Court correctly concluded that appellees' lack of intent to deprive Glick of any interest defeated his section 1983 action. "[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official causing unintended injury to life, liberty, or property." Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347, 106 S.Ct. 668, 670, 88 L.Ed.2d 677 (1986); accord Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328, 106 S.Ct. 662, 663, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986).
Glick's claim that appellee Howell deprived him of due process by refusing to restore his prison classification and good-time credit after the reversals is also without merit. Howell could not restore Glick to his original status because Glick had received a major disciplinary separate and subsequent to the reversals....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharp v. S. D. Dep't of Corrs.
...is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official causing unintended injury to 12 life, liberty, or property.” Glick v. Walker, 834 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986). Here, Sharp alleges that the defendants failed to follow DOC policy......
-
Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons
...v. Comm'r Internal Revenue, 897 F.2d 334, 338 (8th Cir.1990); Estes v. United States, 883 F.2d 645, 648 (8th Cir.1989); Glick v. Walker, 834 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1987); Carpenter v. United States, 720 F.2d 546, 548 (8th Because Jones' first argument on appeal is based almost exclusively o......
-
Estes v. U.S.
...we decline to consider it. The general rule is that this Court will not consider issues not raised below, see, e.g., Glick v. Walker, 834 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1987), and an exception is not called for Estes alleged in his section 2255 motion that because his appointed trial counsel ignore......
-
Swenson v. Trickey, 92-2451
...Brown v. Frey, 889 F.2d at 166. Swenson may not base his § 1983 claim on a violation of the state statute, see, e.g., Glick v. Walker, 834 F.2d 709, 711 (8th Cir.1987), and "[o]fficials sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct viol......