Extra Hands, Inc. v. Missouri Dept of Mental Health ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-1873
___________________________
Extra Hands, Inc.; Kathy Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Missouri Department of Mental Health; Angie Alford
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: December 8, 2021
Filed: December 13, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Extra Hands, Inc. and its owner Kathy Smith appeal the district court’s1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de novo
1
The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
review, we affirm. See Pals v. Weekly, 12 F.4th 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard
of review). We agree with the district court that appellants had no protected property
interest in the contract, as it was terminable at will, see Omni Behav. Health v. Miller,
285 F.3d 646, 652-53 (8th Cir. 2002) (contract with state entity gives rise to protected
property interest when contract confers protected status or permanence, or provides
that state can terminate contract only for cause; as plaintiff’s contract with state
agency was terminable at will, it had no protected property interest therein); and that
their disqualification from forming future contracts with the appellee agency did not
implicate their liberty interest, as it was not based on public charges of fraud or
dishonesty, see Jones v. McNeese, 746 F.3d 887, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2014) (while
defendant’s failure to reinstate plaintiff on contractor list harmed his ability to pursue
his profession, defendant’s internal emails alleging that plaintiff may have engaged
in unethical conduct did not create level of stigma required to implicate liberty
interest). We decline to address appellants’ new arguments on appeal. See Oglesby
v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 534 (8th Cir. 2019).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-