Donald East v. Alex Reyes
Donald East v. Alex Reyes
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 25-1894 ___________________________
Donald East
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Alex Reyes, Acting Warden, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his official capacity; Kellie Wasko; Brent Fluke, Warden of Mike Durfee State Prison; individual capacity; Daniel Sestak, in his individual and official capacity as Unit Manager; Jeff Neil; Thomas Gilchrist, in his official and individual capacity as Sex Offender Management Program; John Doe, 1 in his/her individual and official capacity whose identity and position held is unknown; Other Unknown Persons, and Entities in their individual and official capacities
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern ____________
Submitted: November 4, 2025 Filed: November 7, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.
South Dakota inmate Donald East appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Said v. Mayo Clinic, 44 F.4th 1142, 1147 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). We agree with the district court that East’s retaliation claim was not established by the record. See Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 399 (2019) (First Amendment prohibits retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech; plaintiff must show adverse action would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive). We further agree that his due process claim failed, as there was no protected liberty interest in earning credits toward discharge. See Krentz v. Robertson, 228 F.3d 897, 902 (8th Cir. 2000) (to state procedural due process claim, plaintiff must demonstrate a life, liberty, or property interest, and that the state deprived him of that interest without sufficient process).2 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. 2 East waived review of other claims he raised in the district court by failing to raise those claims on appeal. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008).
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished