Guinther v. Payne

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION EDGAR LEE GUINTHER PETITIONER ADC # 100017 v. CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00642-BSM DEXTER PAYNE RESPONDENT ORDER After de novo review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 8] is adopted and Edgar Lee Guinther’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C section 2254 [Doc. No. 2] is dismissed with prejudice.

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (where petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus and fails to attack the validity of his sentence or the length of his custody, the district court lacks the power or subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ). Guinther’s request to convert his section 2254 claim to a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim is also denied because he has no liberty or property interest to support a conditions-of-confinement claim. See

Thornsberry v. Barden, 854 F. App’x 105 (8th Cir. 2021) (“[A]ssignment to isolation, loss of privileges, and reclassification were insufficient to state a due process claim.”). While Guinther’s arguments of retaliation are well-taken, the disciplinary must be upheld since it was issued by an impartial decisionmaker and there was at least “some evidence” of his guilt. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).

Because Guinther has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)–(2). IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE