Craig Smith v. James McKinney
954 F.3d 1075
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- Craig Smith, serving life for first-degree murder, was at a medium-security facility (FDCF) when a PREA complaint led to administrative segregation and a disciplinary charge for alleged sexual contact with other inmates.
- ALJ Niki Whitacre found Smith guilty based on confidential informants, imposing 365 days’ loss of earned time, a year of disciplinary detention, and recommending transfer to the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), a maximum-security facility.
- Smith was transferred to ISP, placed in disciplinary detention, and lost his job, wages, security classification, security points, and tier status; he appealed administratively without relief.
- A state postconviction court later vacated the disciplinary finding because the ALJ failed to prepare a contemporaneous summary of confidential information; IDC restored Smith’s earned time and expunged the report but did not restore his classification, job, or transfer him back.
- Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation (loss of liberty interest from transfer, detention, and collateral consequences); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no "atypical and significant hardship."
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Smith’s transfer/segregation and loss of privileges did not create a protected liberty interest under Sandin/Wilkinson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith had a state-created liberty interest (Sandin) in avoiding transfer/conditions that triggered due process | Transfer to ISP (indefinite), 365 days disciplinary detention, and loss of job/wages/classification/points/tier were atypical and significant hardships | Transfer to higher security and placement in segregation are not by themselves atypical; loss of privileges/points/jobs is not an "atypical and significant" hardship | Affirmed: No protected liberty interest—conditions and losses do not meet Sandin’s "atypical and significant hardship" standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (assignment to supermax can be atypical when combined with indefinite duration and parole consequences)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (established "atypical and significant hardship" standard for state-created liberty interests)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (no constitutional right to remain in a particular prison)
- Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (demotion to segregation is not itself an atypical and significant hardship)
- Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335 (8th Cir. 1997) (transfer to higher-security facility and loss of job/privileges did not create a liberty interest)
- Kennedy v. Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640 (8th Cir. 1996) (punitive isolation and loss of privileges did not amount to atypical hardship)
- Portley El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2002) (the "atypical and significant hardship" inquiry may be a fact question, but complaint failed to plead conditions)
- Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir. 1995) (prison administrators may transfer inmates for any or no reason; transfers limited by retaliation prohibition)
- Wycoff v. Nichols, 94 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 1996) (no due process claim for more restrictive confinement absent atypical conditions)