Larry Crutchfield v. Clifford Terry

Eighth Circuit

Larry Crutchfield v. Clifford Terry

57 F. App'x 274

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2003

Docket02-2130

StatusUnpublished

This text of 57 F. App'x 274 (Larry Crutchfield v. Clifford Terry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larry Crutchfield v. Clifford Terry, 57 F. App'x 274 (8th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Larry Crutchfield, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo review, see Peter v. Wedl, 155 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Crutchfield’s damages claims for an allegedly wrongful disciplinary conviction are barred because he has not successfully challenged the conviction. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2002). In any event, the summary judgment record shows that his due process claims fail on their merits: the victim’s statement supports the disciplinary conviction, see Goff v. Dailey, 991 F.2d 1437, 1442 (8th Cir.) (due process is satisfied if *275 disciplinary committee based its decision on “some evidence” in record), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 564, 126 L.Ed.2d 464 (1993); the disciplinary hearing officer stated his reasons for finding Crutchfield guilty of assault, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (elements of due process in prison disciplinary hearing); and defendants’ violation of prison policy does not amount to a denial of due process, see Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir.1996) (state’s failure to follow its own procedural rules does not state federal claim). Further, Crutchfield has no constitutional right to be housed in any particular prison or to receive a particular classification. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976).

Accordingly, we affirm, but we modify the judgment to reflect that the adverse grant of summary judgment does not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Larry Crutchfield, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo review, see Peter v. Wedl, 155 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Crutchfield’s damages claims for an allegedly wrongful disciplinary conviction are barred because he has not successfully challenged the conviction. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2002). In any event, the summary judgment record shows that his due process claims fail on their merits: the victim’s statement supports the disciplinary conviction, see Goff v. Dailey, 991 F.2d 1437, 1442 (8th Cir.) (due process is satisfied if *275 disciplinary committee based its decision on “some evidence” in record), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 997, 114 S.Ct. 564, 126 L.Ed.2d 464 (1993); the disciplinary hearing officer stated his reasons for finding Crutchfield guilty of assault, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (elements of due process in prison disciplinary hearing); and defendants’ violation of prison policy does not amount to a denial of due process, see Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir.1996) (state’s failure to follow its own procedural rules does not state federal claim). Further, Crutchfield has no constitutional right to be housed in any particular prison or to receive a particular classification. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976).

Accordingly, we affirm, but we modify the judgment to reflect that the adverse grant of summary judgment does not count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 F. App'x 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-crutchfield-v-clifford-terry-ca8-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack