Christopher Thornsberry v. Roosevelt Barden, 854 F. App’x 105

Background:

Arkansas inmate Christopher Thornsberry reported sexual harassment by another inmate and then received a disciplinary report authored by Captain Roosevelt Barden.
The disciplinary action led to isolation, loss of privileges, and reclassification.
Thornsberry filed an amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging retaliation (First Amendment), due process and Eighth Amendment violations, falsification of records, false imprisonment, violations of prison regulations, and a § 241 claim.
The district court dismissed the complaint on screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Thornsberry appealed and sought IFP on appeal.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of most claims but concluded Thornsberry plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against Barden, reversed the strike, granted IFP on appeal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether verbal remarks by Captain Barden state a constitutional claim	Thornsberry: Barden's derogatory remarks contributed to harassment and rise to actionable misconduct	Barden: Verbal harassment alone is insufficient to state a constitutional claim	Court: Dismissal correct — verbal harassment insufficient absent conduct that shocks the conscience (Kurtz)
Whether assignment to isolation, loss of privileges, reclassification violated due process or Eighth Amendment	Thornsberry: Those sanctions were punitive and violated liberty and Eighth Amendment protections	Defendants: Sanctions were within prison authority and did not impose atypical and significant hardship	Court: Dismissal correct — no atypical and significant hardship and no Eighth Amendment violation
Whether disciplinary charge was retaliatory for reporting harassment (First Amendment)	Thornsberry: Barden issued a false disciplinary report to intimidate him from reporting further harassment (protected grievance activity)	Defendants: Charge was unrelated to Thornsberry’s grievance and therefore not retaliatory	Court: Reversed dismissal as to retaliation — allegations permit reasonable inference Barden acted to chill grievance filing; claim survives pleading stage
Whether claims based on prison regulation violations, falsified documents, false imprisonment, or § 241 state federal claims	Thornsberry: Violations and falsified paperwork caused constitutional and criminal liability	Defendants: Prisoners have no federal right to enforcement of state regulations; falsity alone does not create constitutional claim; no private cause under § 241; Heck bars damages for sentence-related claims	Court: Dismissal correct — no federal liberty interest in prison regulation compliance; falsity alone insufficient; no private § 241 action; Heck bars certain damages claims
Whether district court properly assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)	Thornsberry: Dismissal should not count as a strike because some claims are plausible	Defendants: Dismissal under §1915A counts as a strike	Court: Reversed the strike assessment

Key Cases Cited

Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1999) (§ 1915A dismissal reviewed de novo)
Kurtz v. Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001) (verbal harassment actionable only if it shocks the conscience)
Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002) (segregated confinement challenge requires atypical and significant hardship)
Smith v. McKinney, 954 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2020) (demotion to segregation or loss of privileges not an atypical hardship)
Gonzalez v. Bendt, 971 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2020) (elements required to state a First Amendment retaliation claim)
Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2007) (filing prison grievances is protected First Amendment activity)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (damages for unconstitutional imprisonment barred unless conviction/sentence invalidated)
Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1989) (falsity of disciplinary charges alone does not state a constitutional claim)