Block v. Williams

E.D. Arkansas

Block v. Williams

DecidedJuly 1, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00068

StatusUnknown

This text of Block v. Williams (Block v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Block v. Williams, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD BLOCK PLAINTIFF ADC #130743

V. No. 3:25-cv-68-DPM

CODY M. WILLIAMS, Sergeant, North Central Unit DEFENDANT

ORDER Unopposed recommendation, Doc. 4, adopted as modified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (1983 addition to advisory committee notes). Here’s the modification. The Court does not hold that Block’s due process claim is Heck-barred. It would be barred if the loss of good time credits had the effect of lengthening Block’s sentence. Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996). But it doesn’t; the loss of good time only affects his transfer eligibility date. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201(d); McKinnon v. Norris, 366 Ark. 404, 408, 231 S.W.3d 725, 730 (2006)." In any event, Block failed to state a claim because he doesn’t

* The Court notes two older Court of Appeals decisions that come out the other way, but are not precedent given their dates and designations as unpublished. Eighth Cir. R. 32.1A; Johnson v. Reed, 162 F.3d 1164 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Early v. Blankenship, 221 F.3d 1342 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).

have a liberty interest in his prisoner classification. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Strike recommended. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. MP VWantoll p- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 1 a0as

~2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD BLOCK PLAINTIFF ADC #130743

V. No. 3:25-cv-68-DPM

CODY M. WILLIAMS, Sergeant, North Central Unit DEFENDANT

ORDER Unopposed recommendation, Doc. 4, adopted as modified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (1983 addition to advisory committee notes). Here’s the modification. The Court does not hold that Block’s due process claim is Heck-barred. It would be barred if the loss of good time credits had the effect of lengthening Block’s sentence. Sheldon v. Hundley, 83 F.3d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1996). But it doesn’t; the loss of good time only affects his transfer eligibility date. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-29-201(d); McKinnon v. Norris, 366 Ark. 404, 408, 231 S.W.3d 725, 730 (2006)." In any event, Block failed to state a claim because he doesn’t

* The Court notes two older Court of Appeals decisions that come out the other way, but are not precedent given their dates and designations as unpublished. Eighth Cir. R. 32.1A; Johnson v. Reed, 162 F.3d 1164 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Early v. Blankenship, 221 F.3d 1342 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).

have a liberty interest in his prisoner classification. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Strike recommended. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Any in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. MP VWantoll p- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 1 a0as

~2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Block v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/block-v-williams-ared-2025.

Opinion

V. No. 3:25-cv-68-DPM

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack