Tyson Walker v. Leann Bertsch, No. 18-2529 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff failed to state a due process claim regarding the prison's grievance system as the system does not give rise to a liberty interest; plaintiff did not state a claim concerning the deprivation of his property while he was in a special administrative unit as officials may limit personal property while a prisoner is in administrative segregation; the False Claims Act does not subject state agencies to qui tam liability. [ December 20, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2529 ___________________________ Tyson R. Walker lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Leann K. Bertsch; Colby Braun; Shaun Fode; Jean Sullivan; Nick Friez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: December 20, 2018 Filed: December 21, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. North Dakota inmate Tyson R. Walker appeals the district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After careful de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. We conclude that Walker did not state a due process claim regarding the prison’s grievance system, as the grievance process does not give rise to a liberty interest requiring due process protection, see Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); he did not allege that any specific defendant was responsible for his placement in a special administrative unit, see Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999); and he did not state a claim regarding the deprivation of his property during that placement, as prison officials may limit personal property in administrative segregation, see Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 305 (8th Cir. 1996). Further, the district court did not err in denying leave to amend, because Walker’s proposed qui tam actions under the False Claims Act (FCA) against defendant Bertsch would be futile; specifically, the FCA does not subject state agencies to qui tam liability, and Walker did not allege that Bertsch took any actions outside the scope of her duties. See Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88 (2000); U.S. ex rel. Gaudineer & Comito, L.L.P. v. Iowa, 269 F.3d 932, 937 (8th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Charles S. Miller, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-