Donald East v. Alex Reyes

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Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern ____________ Submitted: November 4, 2025 Filed: November 7, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________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.