The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
RANDALL THOMAS MCARTY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:18-cv-06032
CRYSTAL LITTLETON, Hobby Craft
Supervisor, Ouachita River Correctional
Unit (ORCU); WARDEN FAUST, ORCU;
ASSISTANT WARDEN JACKSON, ORCU;
and ASSISTANT WARDEN STEVE
OUTLAW, ORCU DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff
has filed a response to the motion. (ECF No. 52). Defendants have filed a reply to Plaintiff’s
response. (ECF No. 58). In addition, Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendants’ reply (ECF No.
62) and a supplemental response in opposition to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 65). The Court
finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (“ADC”) and is currently housed at the Varner Unit. Plaintiff’s claims concern his
incarceration and subsequent transfer from the Ouachita River Correctional Unit (“ORCU”) to the
Varner Unit.
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unconstitutionally
retaliated against him by revoking his Hobby Craft card at the ORCU. Plaintiff also alleges that
he was retaliated against when he was transferred from the ORCU to the Varner Unit on February
8, 2018. (ECF No. 42).
Defendant Crystal Littleton has been the Hobby Craft Supervisor at the ORCU since
November 20, 2016. (ECF No. 50-1). Defendant Faust is and was at all times relevant to this
lawsuit the Warden at the ORCU. (ECF No. 43). Defendants Outlaw and Jackson are and were
at all times relevant to this case Assistant Wardens at the ORCU. (ECF No. 43).
The ORCU is primarily a treatment unit for inmates with medical conditions and/or special
needs. (ECF No. 50-2). The ORCU is a minimum to medium security unit and is intended only
to house prisoners with medical conditions and/or special needs. (ECF No. 50-2). The ORCU
frequently receives transfer requests from other ADC units needing to send inmates that require
services only provided at the ORCU. (ECF No. 50-2).
Generally, inmates whose medical issues are resolved at the ORCU are returned to the
same units or units similar to those from which they came. (ECF No. 50-2). The Classification
Officer at the ORCU keeps a list of inmates currently housed at the ORCU that are eligible to be
transferred. An inmate can only be placed on the transfer list by Warden Faust, an assistant
warden, or a major. (ECF No. 50-2).
The Hobby Craft program is authorized by Administrative Directive 16-49, Inmate Work
Craft Program. (ECF No. 50-1; ECF No. 50-4, pp. 45-51). The Hobby Craft program at each
ADC unit is governed by policies specific to that unit. At the ORCU, the Hobby Craft program is
governed by Ouachita River Correctional Unit Policy and Procedures, O.R.U. 22.1.0, Hobby Craft
Privileges. (ECF No. 50-1; ECF No. 50-4, pp. 38-44). Section V of O.R.U. 22.1.0 states that
“Hobby Craft participation is a privilege and should be treated as such.” (ECF No. 50- 4, pp. 38).
All tools for Hobby Craft activities “must be on the inmates’ inventory.” (ECF No. 50-4, pp. 39-
40). Further, “[a]n inmate’s inability to account for Hobby Craft items will result in the revocation
of Hobby Craft privileges and formal disciplinary action may also be taken.” (ECF No. 50-4, p.
40). O.R.U. 22.1.0(VI)(I)(2) advises inmates that “Hobby Craft privileges may be revoked or
suspended with failure to observe verbal or written Hobby Craft rules.” (ECF No. 50-4, p. 43).
Before an inmate can participate in the Hobby Craft program, the inmate must sign an
institutional agreement stating the following:
I understand that I may not sell, give away, loan, or sublet any of my Hobby Craft
tools/equipment to other inmates. I understand that I am Accountable for all my
Hobby Craft tools, equipment, etc. at all times. If my tools are stolen, I must report
the theft immediately to the Shift Supervisor. I understand that the violation of any
of the above rules or any other Hobby Craft Regulation may result in disciplinary
action and/or revocation of My Work Craft privileges.
(ECF No. 50-1; ECF No. 50-4, p. 43-44). According to Littleton, an inmate’s Hobby Craft
privileges (Hobby Craft card) can be revoked without formal disciplinary action being taken.
(ECF No. 50-1, p. 2).
Plaintiff’s Hobby Craft card was originally issued on February 10, 2016, after he signed
an Institution/Inmate Agreement for Hobby Craft. (ECF No. 55-1, pp. 1-2: 10-11). On November
14, 2017, Plaintiff, who was being housed at the ORCU, signed a new Institution/Inmate
Agreement for Hobby Craft. (ECF Nos. 50-1; 50-4, pp.11-12). In addition to the above language,
the agreement signed by Plaintiff stated, “I understand that the violation of any of the above rules
or any other Hobby Craft Regulation as stated in ORU policy number 22.1.0 may result in
disciplinary action and/or revocation of my Work Craft privileges at which time I must wait six
(6) months before I can reapply.” (ECF No. 50-4, p. 11).
Littleton revoked Plaintiff’s Hobby Craft card on or about January 22 or 23, 2018.1 (ECF
No. 42, p. 8; ECF No. 50-1). Littleton’s affidavit states that she revoked Plaintiff’s Hobby Craft
card because he failed to maintain an accurate and up-to-date inventory list of his tools and
supplies. (ECF No. 50-1). Specifically, Littleton testifies that Plaintiff’s “Daily Use Area Tool
Inventory” dated January 22, 2018, failed to include a utility blade. (ECF Nos. 50-1; 50-4, p. 36).
Plaintiff admits that his January 22, 2018 inventory failed to include a utility blade.
Plaintiff also admits that, on that date, a utility blade was found in his Hobby Craft tools. (ECF
1 Littleton’s Affidavit states that she informed Plaintiff “that his Hobby Craft card had been revoked” on January 23,
2018. (ECF No. 50-1, p. 3). However, Plaintiff’s verified complaint asserts that his Hobby Craft card was revoked
on January 22, 2018, and he began filing grievances concerning the revocation on January 22, 2018. (ECF No. 42, p.
8; ECF No. 50-4, pp. 9-10, 13-14, 15-16).
No. 50-3, p. 3). However, Plaintiff asserts that a mix-up with his inventory list is to blame for the
discrepancy. According to Plaintiff, the utility blade that was left off his inventory list was
supposed to have been confiscated by Littleton, because it was not on the approved list of tools
for Hobby Craft participants. (ECF No. 50-4, pp. 20-22; ECF No. 55, pp. 38-40). Plaintiff asserts
that he received forms stating that the utility blade was officially confiscated and removed from
his inventory on November 19, 2017. (ECF No. 52-2, p. 11; ECF No. 55, pp. 38-40). Plaintiff
further asserts that after he received his inventory in January 2018, he discovered that the tools he
thought had been confiscated were still located in their spot in the cabinet. (ECF No. 55, p. 53).
According to Plaintiff, before his Hobby Craft card was revoked, he had spoken to
Littleton’s “porters” about the problems with the tool inventory. Plaintiff alleges that the
revocation of his Hobby Craft card was in retaliation for his complaints about problems with the
tool inventories. (ECF No. 52-2, p. 12). Plaintiff also asserts that he asked “them to correct [his
inventory] earlier on . . . [and] assumed that they had, but obviously they still wasn’t on there.”
(ECF No. 52-6 at pp. 53-54). Plaintiff thinks that he filed a “request for an interview” with
Littleton to attempt to correct the inventory before his Hobby Craft card was revoked. (ECF No.
55-1, p. 56). Plaintiff does not remember if he put the “request for an interview” in the mailbox
or the Hobby Craft box. (ECF No. 55-1, pp. 54-56).
On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Formal Grievance, which states:
On 1-22-18, Hobby Craft Supervisor retaliated against myself and others, by
revoking my card for not communicating with her about the inventory and her
closed door policies. Every since Mrs. Littleton has become Hobby Craft
Supervisor the inventory has been incorrect, she lost a pair of scissors and a box
cutter not long ago that still has not been accounted for, as Sgt. Ugartchea wrote a
005 on at the time. She has even suggested for myself and others in Hobby Craft to
speak with her clerks however its ADC policy that inmates are not to supervise
other inmates. The inventory is ultimately Mrs. Littleton’s responsibility.
The Warden/Center Supervisor’s Decision regarding the grievance, signed by Warden
Faust and dated February 2, 2018, states:
In her response, Ms. Littleton states that she has not retaliated against you. She
also states that you were notified, in writing, that if there was a discrepancy with
your inventory logs, you needed to advise her immediately but you failed to do so.
Ms. Littleton states that she does not have a closed door policy but you are not
allowed to just show up at her office whenever you want. Ms. Littleton advises in
order to speak to her you need to submit an Inmate Request Form to her explaining
why you need to speak to her and request an interview. She will then call for you
and see you concerning your problem. The reason your Hobby Craft Card was
revoked was because I asked Ms. Littleton to pull them from inmates that did not
keep their inventory accurate. Hobby Craft is a privilege and you must take
responsibility for your inventory to insure it is correct at all times for security
reasons. You failed to keep your inventory logs up to date and for that reason lost
your Hobby Craft card.
I find your grievance without merit.
(ECF No. 50-4, pp. 9-10).
Plaintiff filed another Formal Grievance dated January 22, 2018, stating that he has no
control over his inventory and that Littleton bears the responsibility of accurately maintaining his
inventory lists. The Warden/Center Supervisor’s Decision regarding Plaintiff’s second grievance,
signed by Warden Faust and dated February 2, 2018, stated that Plaintiff knew he was required to
bring discrepancies in his inventory to Littleton’s attention, but he failed to do so. (ECF No. 50-
4, pp. 13-14).
Plaintiff filed another Formal Grievance on January 23, 2018, stating that Littleton racially
discriminated against him by revoking his Hobby Craft card because she corrected other inmates’
inaccurate inventory lists. The Warden/Center Supervisor’s Decision regarding Plaintiff’s third
grievance, signed by Warden Faust and dated February 2, 2018, stated that Littleton did not
discriminate against Plaintiff and that she did not give other inmates preferential treatment. ECF
No. 50-4, pp. 15-16). All Plaintiff’s grievances were found to be without merit.
Plaintiff originally came to the ORCU from a medium to maximum security unit. (ECF
No. 50-2). Defendants assert that in January 2018, Plaintiff no longer had any medical issues
requiring special treatment at the ORCU. Plaintiff disputes this assertion and points to his medical
records for support, specifically the statement by Dr. Robert Breving that Plaintiff will “need to
be on a Barrett’s surveillance regimen for the rest of his life” and that “he may need to undergo
Barrett’s ablation again sometime in the future as Barrett’s can regrow at the same site.” (ECF
No. 63, p. 29).
On February 1, 2018, Defendant Warden Faust emailed the ORCU Classification Officer,
advising her to add Plaintiff’s name to the transfer list. (ECF No. 50-2). Faust’s email includes
“Inmate McCarty #101565” in the subject line and states, “[s]ee if you can get him to another unit,
he needs a change of scenery. He is a lifer, medical-M2 with no restrictions, so he should not be
hard to transfer. Thank you.” (ECF No. 52, p. 146). Faust’s affidavit states that she put Plaintiff
on the transfer list “because he no longer needed medical services, and had no medical restrictions,
and he is serving a life-sentence as a result of a conviction of [First] Degree murder.” (ECF No.
50-2).
Faust’s affidavit further states that her “office did not receive any of [Plaintiff’s] grievances
until February 2, 2018.” (ECF No. 50-2). Plaintiff’s grievances are each stamped “RECEIVED
Feb 02 2018 Ouachita River Unit Wardens Office” in the lower right corner. (ECF No. 50-4, pp.
9-16).
An email from the ORCU Classification Officer to another ORCU employee dated
February 7, 2018, states that “[Deputy Warden] Jackson said the Inmate McArty 101565 has been
approved as a swap for [another inmate].” (ECF No. 50-4 at 3). Faust indicated in her affidavit
that Plaintiff was transferred to the Varner unit to open a bed for Inmate Gray, who had been
transferred from Varner to the ORCU hospital on January 18, 2018, and then discharged from the
ORCU hospital on February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 50-2). Faust stated that when Gray was discharged
from the hospital, the Varner Unit requested that Gray be discharged to the ORCU because he
needed continuing medical treatment. Faust further testified that for the ORCU to have a bed for
Gray, an inmate from the ORCU needed to be transferred to the Varner Unit. (ECF No. 50-2).
In her affidavit, Faust stated that it was her decision to transfer Plaintiff. Faust also stated
that she notified Defendants Deputy Warden Jackson and Deputy Warden Outlaw, but they had
no role in Plaintiff being transferred from the ORCU. (ECF No. 50-2). Faust further stated that
Defendant Littleton was a non-security staff member who was not involved in the decision to
transfer Plaintiff. (ECF No. 50-2).
Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of Kenny Halfacre, an inmate, who has been assigned to
the job of classification clerk at several ADC units. Halfacre’s affidavit states that he was
a classification clerk at the Cummins Unit, the East Arkansas Unit, and the Max
Unit at Tucker, and it was an unwritten policy that when a transfer was requested
for an inmate who was not a disciplinary problem and had not requested a unit
transfer, the respective inmate had become a management problem and someone
wanted him transferred to a punishment unit, such as the Varner or East Arkansas
Units. This is especially true if the transfer request is initiated by someone from
the higher chain of command, Warden, Deputy Warden, etc. As a general rule,
these people don’t concern themselves with trivial matters such as transfers, so
when one of these people do request an inmates transfer that inmate has done
something that’s caused him to become a management problem and a transfer to a
punishment unit is the solution to the problem.
(ECF No. 55-1, p. 34).
In the present motion, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on all
claims.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the record “shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). “Once
a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the
non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine
issue of material fact exists.” Nat’l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir.
1999).
The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “They must show there is sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor.” Nat’l Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion is
insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d
621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not
adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him by revoking his Hobby Craft card
and transferring him to the Varner Unit. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary
judgment on all claims. Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
A. Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff makes claims against Defendants in both their individual and official capacities.
In the present case, Defendants are all employees of the ADC, a state agency. An official capacity
claim against any state employee is essentially a claim against the State of Arkansas. “The
Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a State by citizens of that same State in federal court.”
Williams v. Missouri, 973 F.2d 599, 599-600 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S.
265, 276 (1986)). “This bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable.” Id. (quoting
Papasan, 478 U.S. at 276). “Congress did not abrogate constitutional sovereign immunity when
enacting the law that was to become section 1983.” Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 493 (8th Cir.
1991) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342(1979)). In this case, the State of Arkansas and
its agencies have not consented to suit in federal court. Therefore, summary judgment should be
entered in favor of Defendants regarding Plaintiff’s official capacity claims.2 The reminder of the
Court’s opinion will address only the individual capacity claims.
B. Retaliation Regarding Revocation of Hobby Craft Card
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Littleton retaliated against him by revoking his Hobby Craft
card. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he engaged in protected activity by complaining to
Littleton’s “inmate porters” about problems with the Hobby Craft tool inventory and writing to
“Mrs. Littleton about the problems with the inventory.” (ECF No. 52-1, p. 12). According to
Plaintiff, the revocation of his Hobby Craft card was in retaliation for these complaints. (ECF No.
52-1, p. 12).
“An inmate may maintain a cause of action for retaliatory discipline under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 where a prison official files disciplinary charges in retaliation for an inmate’s exercise of
constitutional rights.” Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Sprouse v.
Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1995)). “However, claims of retaliation fail if the alleged
retaliatory conduct violations were issued for the actual violation of a prison rule.” Id. (citing
Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1990)). “Thus, a defendant may successfully
defend a retaliatory discipline claim by showing ‘some evidence’ the inmate actually committed
a rule violation.” Id. (citing Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 738-39 (8th Cir. 1993)).
Turning now to the present case, the Ouachita River Correctional Unit Policy and
Procedures requires that all tools for Hobby Craft activities “must be on the inmates’ inventory.”
(ECF No. 50-4, p. 39-40). Further, “[a]n inmate’s inability to account for Hobby Craft items will
result in the revocation of Hobby Craft privileges and formal disciplinary action may also be
taken.” (ECF No. 50-4, p. 40). Plaintiff signed a Hobby Craft agreement in November 2017
2 Defendants’ Motion does not specifically address Plaintiff’s official capacity claims. However, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii-iii) states that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or
appeal is frivolous or malicious; [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
stating he understood that he was “accountable for . . . [his] Hobby Craft tools [and] equipment . . .
at all times” and that a “violation of any of the . . . rules or any other Hobby Craft Regulation . . .
may result in disciplinary action and/or revocation of [his] Work Craft privileges.” (ECF No. 50-
1, pp. 2-3). Finally, Plaintiff admits that his tool inventory was incorrect.
Although Plaintiff testified that he “thinks” he tried to request an interview with Littleton
to attempt to correct his inventory, he agrees that his inventory was not accurate on January 22,
2018, as required by the Ouachita River Correctional Unit Policy and Procedures. (ECF Nos. 50-
3, p. 3; ECF No. 55-1, pp. 53-54; 56). Because there is no genuine issue of material fact concerning
Plaintiff’s violation of a Hobby Craft rule, Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation with respect to the
revocation of his Hobby Craft card fails. Accordingly, summary judgment should be entered in
favor of Defendant Littleton in her individual capacity regarding this claim.
C. Retaliation Regarding Transfer
Plaintiff alleges a retaliatory transfer claim against Defendants Littleton, Faust, Jackson,
and Outlaw. “In a retaliatory transfer case, the burden is on the prisoner to prove that but for an
unconstitutional, retaliatory motive the transfer would have not occurred.” Sisneros v. Nix, 95
F.3d 749, 752 (8th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation omitted). “Even if retaliation was one factor in
the decision to transfer [an inmate],” the inmate must show that his transfer would not have
occurred “but for” the retaliation. Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1026 (8th Cir. 2012);
Webb v. Hedrick, 409 F. App’x 33, 35 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).
Plaintiff alleges that he engaged in protected activity by filing several grievances
concerning the revocation of his Hobby Craft card. Plaintiff further asserts that his transfer to
Varner was in retaliation for those grievances. As set forth above, Plaintiff’s Hobby Craft
privileges were revoked on or about January 22 or 23, 2018. Plaintiff filed two grievances
concerning this revocation on January 22, 2018, and another grievance on January 23, 2018.
Plaintiff was placed on the transfer list pursuant to an email from Faust on February 1, 2018.
Plaintiff was transferred from the ORCU to Varner on February 8, 2018.
1. Warden Faust
As set forth above, beginning January 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed at least three grievances
concerning the revocation of his Hobby Craft card. Faust placed Plaintiff on the transfer list on
February 1, 2018. Faust’s February 1, 2018 email states, “[s]ee if you can get him to another unit,
he needs a change of scenery. He is a lifer, medical-M2 with no restrictions, so he should not be
hard to transfer. Thank you.” (ECF No. 52, p. 146). On February 2, 2018, Faust dated and signed
the Warden/Center Supervisor’s Decision denying each of Plaintiff’s grievances. (ECF No. 50-4,
pp. 9-10, 13-14, 15-16). Plaintiff was transferred to the Varner Unit on February 8, 2018.
Although Faust’s affidavit testimony states that her “office did not receive any of
[Plaintiff’s] grievances until February 2, 2018,” a question remains as to whether Faust personally
knew of Plaintiff’s grievances prior to Faust’s placement of Plaintiff on the transfer list. This fact
question, considered together with the content and tone of Faust’s email directing that Plaintiff be
placed on the transfer list, leads the Court to find that genuine issues of material fact remain which
prevent summary judgment regarding Plaintiff’s claim of retaliatory transfer against Faust.
The Court also finds that Faust is not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the
alleged retaliatory transfer. An individual is “denied qualified immunity if the answers to the
following two questions are yes: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff has shown the violation of a statutory
or constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged
misconduct.’” Jones v. McNeese, 746 F.3d 887, 894 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Heartland Acad.
Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 805 (8th Cir. 2010)). In the present case, genuine issues
of material fact exist regarding whether Plaintiff’s transfer was in retaliation for his grievances,
and thus a question remains as to whether Plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right.
Thus, the Court proceeds in its analysis to the second question and finds that the right to be free
from retaliation for participating in a constitutionally protected activity was clearly established at
the time of Plaintiff’s transfer. See Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2006);
Lamar v. Kelley, 2017 WL 3084106 (E.D. Ark. June 20, 2017). Accordingly, Faust is not entitled
to qualified immunity with respect to the alleged retaliatory transfer.
2. Littleton, Jackson and Outlaw
Defendants Littleton, Jackson, and Outlaw seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims
regarding his transfer because of their lack of personal involvement in the transfer. “Liability under
section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights. To
establish personal liability on the part of a defendant, [the plaintiff] must allege specific facts of
personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of [his] constitutional rights.”
Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Defendants Littleton, Jackson, and Outlaw have presented the affidavit testimony of
Warden Faust, which states that Faust placed Plaintiff on the transfer list on February 1, 2018.
(ECF No. 50-2). Faust further states that neither Littleton, Jackson, nor Outlaw had any role in
Plaintiff’s transfer. Littleton has also submitted an affidavit stating that she played no role in the
decision to transfer Plaintiff. (ECF No. 50-1). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet proof with proof,
as he provides no evidence that Littleton, Jackson, or Outlaw had any role in his alleged retaliatory
transfer to the Varner Unit. (ECF No. 55-1, pp. 58-60).
For these reasons, the Court finds that summary judgment should be granted with respect
to Plaintiff’s retaliatory transfer claim against Littleton, Jackson, and Outlaw.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 48) should be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation against
Defendant Littleton regarding the revocation of his Hobby Craft card. Summary judgment is
GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants Littleton, Jackson, and
Outlaw regarding transfer. Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s claims
against all Defendants in their official capacities. All claims stated above upon which the Court
has granted summary judgment are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Summary judgment is
DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliatory transfer claim against Defendant Faust, and this is
the only claim that remains in this lawsuit.3 The Court will issue a separate order scheduling the
jury trial in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of July, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
3 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint sets forth only two retaliation claims. However, in other pleadings, Plaintiff
seems to raise due process arguments. To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to assert a due process claim, that claim
would fail. “[A] prisoner enjoys no constitutional right to remain in a particular institution and generally is not entitled
to due process protections prior to such a transfer.” Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t. of Corr., 769 F.2d 502, 503 (8th Cir. 1985);
see also Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976). Further, “[p]risoners have no constitutional right to educational or
vocational opportunities during incarceration.” Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 450 (8th Cir. 1992); see also Logan
v. May, 2012 WL 274742 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 19, 2012) (“Because Plaintiff may pursue a claim for the loss of his Hobby
Craft supplies before the Arkansas Claims Commission, he has no due process claim for the loss of his property.”)