Quam v. Minnehaha County Jail
| Decision Date | 30 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-5299,86-5299 |
| Citation | 821 F.2d 522 |
| Parties | Alan Ray QUAM, Appellant, v. MINNEHAHA COUNTY JAIL, Les Hawkey, Sheriff of Minnehaha County, Dan Elliston, Chief Deputy of Minnehaha County, Unknown Deputies, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thomas W. Parliman, Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellant.
Rita D. Haverly, Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellees.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Alan Ray Quam appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants in this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We affirm.
Quam and five other inmates were transferred to the Minnehaha County Jail following their involvement in a disturbance at the South Dakota State Penitentiary in which several guards were stabbed. The six inmates were housed together in a cellblock separate from the rest of the jail's population. They did not immediately receive normal jail privileges. Their gradual receipt of these privileges was conditioned on the group's good behavior. After the group acquired full privileges, however, jail staff discovered a razor blade and marijuana pipe in possession of two of the six penitentiary transferees. This discovery resulted in the confinement of the penitentiary transferees in their individual cells and the temporary loss of their visitation, recreation, library, and commissary privileges.
Initially, Quam argues it is inappropriate to enter summary judgment against him because he is a prisoner who filed his section 1983 complaint without assistance of counsel. Although Quam is entitled to the benefit of a liberal construction of his pleadings because of his pro se status, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 remains applicable to Quam's lawsuit. See, e.g., Miller v. Solem, 728 F.2d 1020, 1023-24 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 841, 105 S.Ct. 145, 83 L.Ed.2d 84 (1984).
Quam's principal claim on the merits is that restriction and denial of his jail privileges violated his right to due process. We disagree. The due process clause itself provides no protection against administrative segregation of inmates and creates no entitlement to a particular level of privileges in a prison or jail. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-70, 103 S.Ct. 864, 869-70, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983); Clark v. Brewer, 776 F.2d 226, 230 (8th Cir.1985). Quam's entitlement to privileges can only arise from a liberty interest created by state statutes, regulations, or official policies. Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 469, 103 S.Ct. at 870; Clark, 776 F.2d at 230. The record in this case, however, fails to establish the existence of any such statute, regulation, or policy. Quam's reliance on the jail's disciplinary policy is misplaced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramsey v. Squires
...has held that imposition of the penalty of loss of privileges is not cognizable under the Due Process Clause. Quam v. Minnehaha County Jail, 821 F.2d 522, 522-23 (8th Cir.1987). In this case, we are not faced with imposition of a lesser penalty in the sense of discipline or punishment. Nor ......
-
Wood v. Eubanks
...No. 98-1832, 202 F.3d 269 (table), 2000 WL 32036, at *2, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 412, at *6 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Quam v. Minnehaha County Jail, 821 F.2d 522 (8th Cir. 1987)).IV. DISCUSSION To state a claim under § 1983, "a plaintiff must set forth facts that, when construed favorably, estab......
-
Schnitzler v. Reisch, CIV. 06-4064.
...construction of their pleadings because of their pro se status, Fed. R.Civ.P. 56 remains applicable to them. Quam v. Minnehaha County Jail, 821 F.2d 522 (8th Cir.1987). Courts must remain sensitive, however, to the special problems faced by prisoners attempting to proceed pro se in vindicat......
-
Spencer v. Fed. Prison Camp Duluth
...unless the plaintiff has set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Quam v. Minnehaha Cnty. Jail, 821 F.2d 522, 522 (8th Cir. 1987) ("Although Quam is entitled to the benefit of a liberal construction of his pleadings because of his pro se status, Fe......