eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 2003-03

Tommy Radford v. F C Moka , 57 F. App'x 278 ( 2003 )


Menu:
 
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2552
___________
Tommy L. Radford,                     *
*
Appellant,                *
* Appeal from the United States
v.                              * District Court for the Eastern
* District of Arkansas.
F. C. Moka, Sgt., Maximum Security    *
Unit, ADC; C. Givens; C. Sanders,     * [UNPUBLISHED]
CO-I, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; *
G. Harmon, Warden, Maximum            *
Security Unit, ADC; J. Blankenship,   *
Hearing Officer, Arkansas Department *
of Correction;                        *
*
Appellees,                *
*
T. Compton, Grievance Coordinator,    *
Arkansas Department of Correction;    *
*
Defendant,                *
*
John Does, Security Officers,         *
Unidentified State Prison Agencies,   *
*
Appellee.                 *
___________
Submitted: March 7, 2003
Filed: March 12, 2003
___________
Before HANSEN, CHIEF JUDGE, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Tommy Radford appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of
summary judgment in his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that three officers wrote
false disciplinaries against him, the warden did not remedy the situation, and a
hearing officer improperly upheld the disciplinaries. Radford also appeals the denial
of his motion to amend his complaint to allege only exhausted claims.
Upon de novo review, see Cody v. Weber,
    256 F.3d 764
    , 767 (8th Cir. 2001),
we conclude there was some evidence that Radford committed actual rule violations.
See Moore v. Plaster,
    266 F.3d 928
    , 931 (8th Cir. 2001) (retaliation claim may be
defended by showing “some evidence” that inmate actually committed rule violation),
cert. denied,
    122 S. Ct. 1797
     (2002); Henderson v. Baird,
    29 F.3d 464
    , 465, 469 (8th
Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
    515 U.S. 1145
     (1995). We also conclude his damages claims
were barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
    512 U.S. 477
     (1994). See Portley-El v. Brill,
    288 F.3d 1063
    , 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2002). Finally, we find no error in the denial of
Radford’s motion to amend, because his complaint was not dismissed on exhaustion
grounds.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
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 Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-3-