AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Retaliation
Monthly Law Journal Article: Retaliation Against Prisoners for Protected First Amendment Expression, 2010 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
|
A Utah prisoner believed that state law required correctional authorities to pay interest on prisoner’s fund accounts. He further believed that a bank that contracted with the Utah Department of Corrections to hold inmate funds was illegally retaining interest earned by the funds rather than paying it to prisoners. His lawsuit claimed that he was unlawfully retaliated against for investigating this by seizing his legal papers and issuing a negative parole report that caused the denial of parole despite him being a “model prisoner” similarly situated to other prisoners granted parole. Defendants in the lawsuit included correctional officials, the bank, and bank employees. He asserted both takings and due process violations for withholding interest on his funds and First Amendment retaliation claims. The trial court dismissed all claims except the retaliation claim and dismissed all defendants except five prison officials. It then granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims to the remaining defendants. In their motion to dismiss, the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) and the prison-official defendants in their official capacities claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity, as an arm of the State of Utah, but this was not addressed by the trial court. A federal appeals court ruled that the takings claim against the UDOC defendants had to be dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Williams v. Utah Department of Corrections, #18-4058, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20157, 2019 WL 2911061 (10th Cir.). |
A prisoner formerly confined at a correctional facility claimed that prison guards there used excessive force in attacking him and that the beating and subsequently disciplinary proceedings occurred in retaliation for lawsuits and grievances that he had filed. At trial, the judge entered judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on all claims except those asserting excessive force by two officers. The jury decided those claims against the plaintiff. A federal appeals court reversed in part. Because the plaintiff’s trial testimony allowed for a permissible inference of retaliation, the judge should not have taken the retaliation claims from the jury. Thomas v. Anderson, #15-2830, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 32249 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that prison officials conspired to violate his First and Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in segregation in retaliation for his grievances and complaints about his conditions of confinement. Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff’s grievances and complaints were a motivating factor in or even entered into the decision to place him in segregation after a specific incident or that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference towards the plaintiff or otherwise disregarded or failed to act on knowledge of a substantial risk to his health and safety. Finally, no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, was presented of an agreement to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Daugherty v. Harrington, #17-3224, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 28753 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner’s right not to be forced to serve as a prison informant or provide false information to prison officials is protected by the First Amendment. A federal appeals court, however, upheld summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the defendants in a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit by a plaintiff prisoner who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated when he was put on a restricted status known as Involuntary Protective Custody for over six months because he refused the demands of prison guards to act as a snitch, or to falsify his account of a minor incident in the commissary. The appeals court ruled that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the court had not previously recognized the particular speech and speech‐related activity as protected by the First Amendment. Burns v. Martuscello, #15-1631, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 12123 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner complained after he was given only half a serving in the lunch line. A prison guard allegedly then yelled “shut the fuck up if you wanna eat.” The lunch supervisor then gave the prisoner a full portion, but the guard allegedly then said “if you’re going to complain then you’re going to get a misconduct,” and gave the prisoner a ticket. The prisoner claimed that after that he was given shortened portions because of the guard’s retaliation. A hearing officer found the guard’s statement “more credible” without viewing available video footage, The prisoner was found guilty of creating a disturbance and lost privileges for seven days. A federal appeals court ruled that the factual findings made at the prisoner’s minor misconduct hearing did not have a preclusive effect in federal court on an unlawful retaliation claim. The court declined to adopt the “checkmate doctrine,” which provides that when a prison hearing finds that a prisoner has committed an actual violation of prison rules and the finding is based on some evidence, it “essentially checkmates” a retaliation claim. The prisoner introduced sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claim against the guard individually. By complaining about the insufficient quantity of food he had received, the prisoner was pursuing a grievance about prison conditions and seeking redress of that grievance. Therefore, he was engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment on the prisoner’s official-capacity claim, however, based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Maben v. Thelen, #17-1289, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 8389, 2018 Fed. App. 65P (6th Cir.).
A federal appeals court found that a federal prisoner adequately pled claims for unlawful retaliation after he filed a grievance expressing safety concerns following several power outages at the prison. Brunson v. Nichols, #14-31350, 875 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2017).
A sexually violent predator civilly committed for treatment in a Special Treatment Unit was subjected at least annually to an interview by members of a Treatment Progress Review Committee (TPRC). The committee then considered a range of materials to formulate a recommendation about whether the patient should progress to the next step in the program. A member of the committee wrote a report recommending that the patient not advance in treatment. The report recognized that this was “not consistent” with his treatment team's recommendation, but concluded that he “had not fully met the treatment goals,” provided a detailed overview of his sexual and non-sexual offenses, diagnostic history, and clinical treatment, and summarized the results of an interview, including that “it appears that he denies, minimizes or justifies much of his documented offense history,” and that “[h]e did not demonstrate remorse for his crimes or empathy for his victims.” The patient sued, alleging retaliation for his First Amendment-protected participation in legal activities on behalf of himself and other sexual predator residents. A federal appeals court concluded that he was entitled to qualified immunity, reasoning that the plaintiff pleaded facts reflecting that the defendant based her recommendation on the medically-relevant collateral consequences of his protected activity, but has not sufficiently pled that the recommendation was based on the protected activity itself as required to show First Amendment retaliation. Oliver v. Roquet, #14-4824 858 F.3d 180 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Prison officials were not entitled to
qualified immunity on a prisoner’s claim that they retaliated against him for
filing a grievance by imposing disciplinary charges against him in violation of
his First Amendment rights. While no prior published Fourth Circuit decision
directly addressed whether filing a grievance was protected First Amendment
conduct, the right was clearly established based on general constitutional
principles or a consensus of persuasive authority. In this case, the inmate’s
right was found to have been clearly established based on the Second, Sixth,
Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits all recognizing in
published decisions that inmates possess a First Amendment's Petition Clause
right to be free from retaliation in response to filing a prison grievance. Booker v. South Carolina Department of Corrections,
#15-7679, (4th Cir.).
Disciplinary
proceedings in three separate years resulted in a prisoner’s loss of 16 months
of earned good-conduct credit. He unsuccessfully, but diligently, pursued
administrative grievances regarding these hearings. His lawsuit challenged
proceedings from two years as having been retaliatory in violation of his First
Amendment rights, and that lawsuit was dismissed. He then sought habeas relief
in state court, which was denied. A federal habeas petition was denied as moot
when he was released from custody, and he then filed a second federal civil
rights lawsuit. While screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) the trial
court found that the plaintiff stated claims for due process violations and for
retaliation but granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that the
lawsuit was barred by precedent requiring a prisoner plaintiff to pursue timely
collateral relief while in custody. A federal appeals court reversed, finding
that the prisoner did his best to obtain timely relief while in custody, and
“precedent requires no more.” Whitfield v. Howard, #15-2649, 2017 U.S. App.
Lexis 5383 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that the
defendant prison employees falsely classified him as a gang member in
retaliation for him filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against their
co-workers. California courts rejected his claim for habeas relief, finding
sufficient evidence to support the gang classification. A federal appeals court
ruled that this determination by the California courts precluded the prisoner’s
subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit asserting claims for violation of his
First Amendment retaliation and equal protection rights based on the same
classification. The appeals court held that the same primary right—the
prisoner’s right to be free from unlawful gang validation and placement in
segregated housing —was at issue in both suits. Because the suit involved the
same cause of action between the same parties after a final judgment on the
merits of the first suit, the subsequent suit was barred. Furnace v. Giurbino,
#13-17620, 838 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2016).
A prisoner claimed that
he faced unlawful retaliation in that he was transferred to administrative
segregation after he reported a correctional officer for allegedly using
excessive force against him while escorting him to a holding cell. Upholding
the rejection of qualified immunity for the defendant prison official, the federal
appeals court found without merit the argument that California state
regulations required that the prisoner be transferred to administrative
segregation as soon as he alleged that an officer assaulted him. Cal. Code
Regs. tit. 15, 3335(a) does not require that, and the plaintiff prisoner had
established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was retaliated
against. Shepard v. Wise, 13-15554, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 19352 (9th Cir.).
A Muslim inmate at a
federal correctional facility claimed that he was terminated from his paid work
assignment because he complained that two correctional officers were subjecting
him to anti-Muslim harassment at work. He further claimed that this harassment
had caused him to refrain from praying at work. He asserted claims under the
First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, and the
Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). Reversing dismissal of the
plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation and RFRA claims, a federal appeals
court ruled that a prisoner's oral grievance to prison officials can constitute
protected activity under the Constitution, that the RFRA prohibits individual
conduct that substantially burdens religious exercise, and that the RFRA
provides for monetary relief from an official sued in his individual capacity.
The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment Free Exercise and
Fifth Amendment equal protection claims. Mack v. Warden, Loretto Fed. Corr.
Inst., #14-2738, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 18336 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that an officer broke off the
antenna on his radio during a cell search, while the officer claimed that it
was already broken and secured by tape. The officer confiscated the broken
radio as contraband and refused the prisoner's request that he fill out an
incident report stating that he broke the radio. He alleged requested a
grievance form but did not receive one. Instead he was summoned to the security
office later that day and reprimanded for giving officers a hard time. He was told
he would receive a misconduct, and subsequently filed a grievance against the
officer over the radio incident after getting a form from someone else. He was
then found guilty of misconduct. Overturning dismissal of a First Amendment
retaliation claim, a federal appeals court held that not every violation of
prison protocols supported by some evidence bars such a claim, especially
relatively minor offenses, such as a radio antenna secured by tape. Watson v.
Rozum, #13-3510, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15429 (3rd Cir.).
A prisoner's complaint about being assaulted and
injured by another inmate was not a "personal gripe" unprotected by
the First Amendment. The plaintiff prisoner, therefore, could proceed with his
lawsuit alleging that he was disciplined for pursuing his complaint concerning
the incident. Ogurek v. Gabor, #15-1151 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11712 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that his First Amendment
rights were violated when he was allegedly placed in solitary confinement in
retaliation for publishing a by-lined online article. The sued federal prison
employee, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as it was
not clearly established that a prisoner had a protected constitutional right to
publish an article under a by-line. The appeals court, therefore, did not reach
the issue of whether the action violated the prisoner's rights. McGowan v. United
States, #15-1786, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10263 (2nd Cir.).
A federal appeals court reinstated a lawsuit
arising after a pagan worship area at a prison was destroyed during a
construction project. The prisoners filed grievances about the demolition. They
were subsequently charged with abusing the grievance procedure and sentenced to
15 days of disciplinary segregation. One of them was transferred to another
facility. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of prison
administrators on an unlawful retaliation claim, after the defendants contended
that the plaintiffs abused the grievance process to harass the staff. The appeals
court disagreed, finding evidence that the plaintiffs "engaged in the
prison’s informal resolution procedure before filing their grievances,” and
that their grievances "were not frivolous, vexatious or duplicative."
Debarr v. Clark, #14-15497, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 6935 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A former gang member was attacked by other
inmates and left permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair. He was told
that he had been targeted because his assailants thought he was a pedophile. He
learned that his prison records had reference to the Adam Walsh Act, 42 U.S.C.
16901–91, creating a national sex offender registry, although his convictions
were actually for other crimes. He filed a grievance asking that his prison
records be corrected, and that he be placed in segregation because he heard
that inmates at a new facility he had been transferred to were planning to
attack him. He was assigned to a wheelchair accessible cell, but was attacked
by his cellmate within a month over his "Walsh Act stuff." When he
filed a grievance and objected to a new proposed cellmate, guards allegedly
took him to a non-accessible cell and refused to help him to the toilet.
Subsequently, he was found lying on the floor near the toilet, suffering a
sprained spine, a shoulder contusion, and head lacerations. A federal appeals
court vacated the dismissal of his First Amendment retaliation claim and an
Eighth Amendment claim that a guard was implementing a policy of moving every
prisoner who objects to a new cellmate, for the purpose of deterring prisoners
from attempting to reserve one-person cells. Herron v. Meyer, #15-1659, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 7472 (7th Cir.).
An Illinois man confined as a sexually violent
person sued the facility's program director, its grievance examiner, and a
security therapist aide, claiming that they infringed on his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by disregarding his grievances regarding dental
care and by insulting him. A federal appeals court overturned dismissal of the
complaint, finding that the grievances were protected speech and that a warning
that his life would be better if he stopped filing his grievance may have gone
beyond mere verbal harassment. The court also commented that the plaintiff, as
a civil detainee, was “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of
confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to
punish.” The defendants, as staff members of an institution that houses and
treats persons suffering from mental disorders should understand that they are
dealing with psychologically impaired persons, and should have known better
than to shout at a possibly vulnerable person, call him “ignorant,” “stupid,”
and a “moron,” ignore grievances that might be meritorious and serious, and
threaten him with retaliation for complaining. Hughes v. Scott, #15-3482, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 5349 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) claimed that prison wardens and supervisory physicians acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The wardens were
entitled to qualified immunity because there was no specific evidence that they
were directly involved in or responsible for the allegedly inadequate
treatment. Further, the evidence showed that the physicians were aware of the
prisoner's medical needs and took steps to meet them. The prisoner also failed
to show that he engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment or that
his transfer to another facility or placement in segregation was retaliatory or
violated due process. In fact, the transfer was to facilitate him receiving
necessary psychiatric treatment. Saylor v. Randy Kohl, M.D., #14-3889, 2016
U.S. App. Lexis 1459 (8th Cir.).
After finishing his prison sentence for a sex offense,
the plaintiff was civilly committed as a Sexually Violent Person. While
committed, he argued that he was fired from his dietary services job in
retaliation for his having previously filed lawsuits against staff members,
based on "trumped-up" disciplinary charges. A federal appeals court
reversed the screening out of the lawsuit as containing only conclusory
allegations. The trial judge had interviewed the plaintiff via telephone. The
appeals court noted that it had previously ruled against ex parte telephone
interrogation as a permissible method of screening complaints to decide whether
they stated a claim. While a trial judge can interview a pro se detainee to
determine what the case is (but not its merits) a transcript or recording must
be made to allow for review on appeal. Henderson v. Wilcoxen, #15-2029, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 17443 (7th Cir.).
Voicing inmate grievances as a member of an
Inmate Liaison Committee qualified as constitutionally protected First
Amendment activity, so that the trial court improperly dismissed the
plaintiff's claim that he faced unlawful retaliation as a result of such
activity. Dolan v. Connolly, #14-2561, 794 F.3d 290 (2nd Cir. 2015).
An inmate injured his hand during a prison
basketball game. While a nurse quickly wrapped his hand, she was not able to
either give him medicine or do stitches. A day later, the inmate saw a doctor
who also did not stitch his wound, but prescribed antibiotics and recommended a
specialist. Approval for seeing a specialist took a number of days, during
which the wound remained open and bleeding. The prisoner filed a grievance,
which was rejected, arguing that the delay was retaliatory for him having filed
a previous grievance over the withholding of prescription medication. He was
then taken to a clinic where he saw a physician's assistant, who stated that he
could not suture the wound because of its age. The inmate claimed that prison
officials did not follow care instructions after that and did not return him to
the clinic for follow-up care. Seven months later, he still had continuing
pain, and then had surgery. He claims that due to an overall ten-month delay in
getting required treatment, he suffered irreparable damage. The trial court
dismissed his lawsuit after screening it, and a federal appeals court reversed,
finding that the alleged facts stated both valid Eighth Amendment and First
Amendment retaliation claims. Perez v. Fenoglio, #12-3084, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
11672 (7th Cir.).
An inmate suffering from a neurological condition
was able to ambulate, stand, and sit with the assistance of crutches and leg
braces. No doctor had ordered a wheelchair for him, or that he be transported
via a wheelchair-accessible van. He arrived for transport to a medical
appointment with neither a wheelchair or a physician's order. A wheelchair
accessible van with a lift was available, but standing on the lift was
forbidden because of the risk of falling. The prisoner claimed that he had to
enter the van by crawling, exposing him to urine and vomit on the floor, that
he was unable to eat while traveling, and that during his return trip the
driver stopped the vehicle near a ridge and said that guards could drown him
and claim he tried to escape. The prisoner further claimed that when he filed a
grievance over these events, prison staff members retaliated against him with
verbal abuse, ransacked his cell, and transported him in a
non-wheelchair-accessible van for part of the trip when he was moved to another
prison. A federal appeals court rejected Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
claims, as well as disability discrimination and retaliation claims. The record
did not support his argument that he had an objectively serious medical need
requiring the use of a wheelchair-accessible van. Even if the van conditions
were unsanitary, he was exposed to them for only approximately six hours on a
single occasion, and the one time single sentence alleged threat by the driver
was insufficient to show a constitutional violation. The prisoner failed to
provide sufficient evidence that the subsequent actions allegedly taken against
him were retaliatory. Turner v. Mull, #14-1589, 784 F.3d 485 (8th Cir. 2015).
The trial court erroneously dismissed a
prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he faced unlawful retaliation for filing
grievances based on an alleged failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The alleged threats
of retaliation by various defendants showed why he could not have filed the
grievance about the reprisal internally at the facility, meeting the conditions
for instead filing a grievance directly with the Secretary of the State
Department of Correction. Dimanche v. Brown, #12-13694, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
6339 (11th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he had been granted
parole but that it was rescinded because he was facing pending disciplinary
charges and had been placed in a restrictive housing unit as a result. He
claimed that these actions were retaliatory for having filed a grievance
against an officer. These actions did not violate his due process rights
because the misconduct determinations, his time placed in the restrictive
housing unit, and his parole recission, did not, either alone or in
combination, create an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life. But the prisoner did adequately allege a
retaliation claim against a particular officer by claiming that when he refused
to confess to a particular charge and instead filed a grievance against this
officer, he was placed in administrative custody in retaliation. Fantone v.
Latini, #13-3611, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 2470 (3rd Cir.).
The wife of an inmate claimed that her visitation
privileges with him were terminated in retaliation for her exercising her First
Amendment rights by engaging in public protests asserting that the Department
of Corrections was violating the rights of her husband and other prisoners then
on a hunger strike. While a reasonable jury could find that the motivation for
the termination, in part, might have been to retaliate for her role in the
protests, it was also motivated by legitimate concerns about the security and
safety of inmates and staff members. The defendant officials were entitled to
qualified immunity for both the period of time during the hunger strike and
after it ended, as the decision to terminate visitation rights was made while
the hunger strike was ongoing and was lawful when it was made. Jackson v.
Humphrey, #14-10183, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 469 (11th Cir.).
An inmate assisted another prisoner in writing a
letter to officials outside the state Department of Corrections concerning an
officer's alleged acceptance of a pair of ostrich-skin shoes made by the second
prisoner. He claimed that the officer subsequently caused him to convince the
second prisoner to dismiss his complaint by giving him favorable treatment. The
first prisoner filed grievances that the officer had coerced him into doing so
and discussed with another inmate a fabrication that he had possessed a cell phone.
When a cell phone was found in another inmate's bunk during a search, the first
prisoner claimed that he was warned by an officer that disciplinary charges
concerning the phone would be filed against him unless he withdrew his
grievances. He was charged and found guilty of use of a cell phone, losing
privileges and spending 30 days in isolation, and the decision was upheld on
review. In a lawsuit for retaliatory discipline, the jury found for the
plaintiff and awarded him $1 in nominal damages. A federal appeals court
reversed and remanded the decision and award, finding that the prisoner
received adequate notice of the disciplinary charges against him. did not show
that there were any witnesses or evidence that he was barred from presenting at
the disciplinary hearing, and received a copy of the decision of the
disciplinary hearing. The defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment as
a matter of law because there was "some evidence" to support the
discipline imposed against plaintiff and "some evidence" that he
committed the charged infraction. Sanders v. Page, #13-3237, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 22785 (8th Cir.).
A federal prisoner filed a lawsuit claiming that
he had been placed in administrative detention for 60 days in unlawful
retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for filing a claim under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), as well as a claim of failure to protect in
violation of the Eighth Amendment based on an assault on him by another
prisoner. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, based on
the plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative remedies
before suing, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
1997e(a), as well as a ruling that the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim was
barred by his decision to file a FTCA claim regarding the assault. A federal
appeals court vacated the trial court's ruling, holding that the failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies should be excused because of specific
allegations that one of the defendants intimidated him from pursuing a
grievance by a threat to transfer him to another facility where she said he
would be attacked and placing him in a special housing unit after he filed his
FTCA claim, and that the FTCA claim did not bar the Eighth Amendment claim
because the FTCA claim was dismissed by the trial court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and there was no judgment on the claim. Himmelreich v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, #13-4212, 766 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014).
A prisoner accused officials of interfering with
his access to the court by first confiscating and then destroying his legal
papers, doing so in retaliation for an early lawsuit he had filed concerning
medical care. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the
defendants, pointing out that the prisoner failed to produce evidence either
that the defendants acted for retaliatory motives or actually destroyed his
papers. Instead, there was evidence that the prisoner created a fire hazard by
stacking excess property, including the papers, near his bed. Officials had
allowed him to keep some legal materials and he had stored the rest of them,
and officials were actually unaware of his pending lawsuit. The prisoner did
not submit any evidence to refute this version of events. Devbrow v. Gallegos,
#13-1627, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 22278 (7th Cir.).
Summary judgment was properly granted for a
defendant prison official on a prisoner's unlawful retaliation claim. The
prisoner's action in serving the prison official with a lawsuit summons and
complaint on behalf of another prisoner was not constitutionally protected
activity either on the basis of the right of access to the courts or the First
Amendment. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, #10-16845, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis18782 (9th
Cir.).
An ex-prisoner from Illinois claimed that, during
his incarceration, he was subjected to a number of improper strip searches
designed to humiliate him and that this was done in retaliation for his filing
of grievances complaining about earlier searches. A jury returned a verdict for
the defendants. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the trial court
improperly instructed the jury by putting the burden of proof on the wrong
party, telling them that, to prevail on his retaliation claim, the prisoner had
to prove that his filing of the prior grievances "were the sole cause of
the particular strip search." The court stated that "The jury should
have been instructed that the plaintiff had the burden of proving that
retaliation was a motivating factor in the strip search, but that, even if he
proved this, the defendants could still prevail if they persuaded the jury that
it was more likely than not that the strip search would have taken place even
if there had been no retaliatory motive."Mays v. Springborn, #11-2218,
2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11762 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he had been disciplined
in retaliation for writing a letter to fellow inmates asking them to work
together in support of his class action lawsuit against prison administrators.
He claimed that this violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Summary judgment was entered for the defendants on the First Amendment claims
but summary judgment was entered for the prisoner on a due process claim. After
a jury trial on damages at which the prisoner was awarded nominal and punitive
damages, the parties reached a settlement providing that the prisoner would
receive $11,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs. The prisoner then attempted to
appeal the summary judgment against him on the First Amendment claim. The
appeals court ruled that this issue was barred by the settlement agreement.
Jones v. McDaniel, #10-16658, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11676 (9th Cir.).
A county correctional officer allegedly wrote
fake letters to various inmates to get them to retaliate against the plaintiff
prisoner and his family, in order to try to get him to drop a personal injury
lawsuit he had filed against the officer. In writing the fake letters, he had
accessed various information in institutional files about inmates. A California
intermediate appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendant county,
because the officer's actions were for personal motives and outside the scope
of his employment. Further, as to civil rights claims, the plaintiff had failed
to allege what supposed constitutional right he believed that the county had
violated. Perry v. County of Fresno, #F063887, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 264 (5th
Dist.).
An inmate got involved in a fight with officers
who were taking him to administrative segregation. The officers used pepper
spray on him, threw him on the floor and put leg restraints on him, and one of
them allegedly turned his left wrist upward in a sharp motion, dislocating it.
He claimed that the use of force had continued against him at a time when he
was not resisting. The court found that the officers were entitled to qualified
immunity on the excessive force claims, but not on the claim that one of them
acted with deliberate indifference in delaying allowing him to wash off the
pepper spray. Claims against one officer for alleged retaliatory death threats
were also allowed to go forward, Santiago v. Blair, #11-3693, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 26854 (8th Cir.).
A prisoner sued correctional officers, claiming
that they retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights,
transferring him to a higher security level facility because he participated in
a class action lawsuit in state court on inmate property issues and aided other
prisoners in filing grievances. The inmate's actions constituted protected
activities, and were followed by an adverse event, his transfer. A federal
appeals court upheld a trial court judgment in favor of two defendants found
not to have engaged in unlawful retaliation but ordered further proceedings as
to three other defendants to determine if they did. There was evidence that
these three had been involved in the decision to make the transfer and may have
been motivated by retaliatory motives. They had not adequately shown that they would
have ordered the transfer in any event because of the inmate's
"disruptive" behavior, as the record was devoid of any evidence of
such behavior other than the protected activities and a memo written by a
defendant whose bias was evident from her "acts of instructing other
officers to fabricate misconduct tickets against him." The other two
remaining defendants did not claim to have read that memo. King v.
Zamiara, #09–2469, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 10240, 2012 Fed. App. 146P
(6th Cir.).
A prisoner not involved in a fight between two
other inmates claimed he struck in the arm by a shotgun pellet fired by a guard
was a nearby catwalk. He allegedly had to wait four days for medical attention,
suffering significant pain in the interim. Right after the incident, a medical
aide allegedly assured him that she would go and get medication and medical
supplies for him, but did not return with it. He asserted a valid claim for
excessive use of force, as there was sufficient evidence to support an
inference that an officer acted maliciously in using deadly force against
prisoners not involved in the fight. The delay in treatment supported a claim
for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Claims against one
officer concerning medical care were properly dismissed, as he summoned medical
assistance as soon as he became aware of the prisoner's injury. The prisoner
also stated a valid First Amendment claim, based on his assertion that he was
transferred to another facility in retaliation for threatening to bring a
grievance over the incident. Gomez v. Randle, #11-2962, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis
9656 (7th Cir.).
Any humiliation which an inmate suffered when a
correctional officer laughed and brushed his thigh against the inmate's while
he was sitting on the toilet in his cell rather than leaving, was insufficient
for an Eighth Amendment violation. The prisoner's claims, however, that
officers threatened to hit him, to not bring him breakfast, and filed a false
disciplinary charge against him, stated valid First Amendment retaliation
claims if done because of his filing of various grievances. A retaliation claim
was also adequately stated against a warden who allegedly was motivated by the
prisoner's grievances to lie about him so that his parole would be denied.
Watison v. Carter, #10–16778, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2818 (9th Cir.).
A class of persons civilly committed to a state
hospital as sexually violent predators filed a federal civil rights lawsuit
against supervisory officials challenging the conditions of their confinement,
including alleged unreasonable searches and seizures, use of unreasonable force
and physical restraints, and unlawful retaliation. The appeals court ruled that
the claims against the supervisors individually for damages failed because the
complaint was based on "conclusory allegations and generalities"
without any allegation of the specific wrongdoing by each defendant. This
entitled them to qualified immunity. The court ruled, however, that the lawsuit
could proceed on claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Hydrick v.
Hunter, #03-56712, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 628 (9th Cir.).
A prisoner was not allowed to go to his plumbing
crew work assignment, and was told that he fit the profile of an escape risk.
He was further told, however, that he had not lost his job, but would be
allowed to return to it after certain additional security precautions were in
place. After he filed a grievance challenging his classification as an escape
risk, he was terminated from his job. Given the sequence of events, he stated a
viable claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing the grievance in
violation of his First Amendment rights. Milligan v.
Archuleta, #11-1218, 659 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2011).
A prisoner who claimed that he was beaten by
correctional personnel in retaliation for having filed a grievance filed a
federal civil rights lawsuit over the beating without first filing a new
grievance over it. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed,
given the requirement in 42 U.S.C. Sec 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA) that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before
filing suit. The appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed with his
lawsuit if he could show that his fear of additional retaliation reasonably
deterred him from filing another grievance. The appeals court concluded that
when "a prison official inhibits an inmate from utilizing an
administrative process through threats or intimidation, that process can no
longer be said to be 'available.'" Tuckel v. Grover, #10-1353, 660
F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011).
A prison education director had an inmate fired
from his job as a clerk in the prison library. The prisoner subsequently filed
a grievance against the education director, who filed a misconduct report
against the prisoner a day later concerning the incident that led to the
firing. Based on the timing of the misconduct report, as well as its
"threadbare" nature, the prisoner stated a triable claim of unlawful
retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights against the education
director. Greene v. Doruff, #10-3497, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 20597 (7th)
A prisoner was entitled to proceed with his claim
that he was transferred to a restricted housing unit by a captain in retaliation
for his First Amendment-protected activity of filing a grievance concerning a
disciplinary charge the captain filed against him. There was evidence that the
captain justified the transfer by claiming to have information that the
prisoner was somehow responsible for a fight between other prisoners, but his
failure to similarly transfer two prisoners known to have been involved in the
fight supported the claim of a retaliatory motive. Washington-El v.
DiGuglielmo, #10-2462, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5857 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A "jailhouse lawyer" who claimed that
he was transferred to an out-of-state prison in retaliation for his activities
on behalf of other prisoners and for pursuing his own grievances failed to show
that there was a causal relationship between these admittedly protected
activities and his transfer. Instead, there was evidence that the transfer
elsewhere was the result of the prisoner having accumulated a number of
"separations," which the court characterized as "a term used to
indicate the existence of a placement conflict counseling against assignment of
one inmate to the same institution as another inmate or staff member."
Hannon v. Beard, #10-1792, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11549 (1st Cir.).
An African-American prisoner in Michigan claimed
that, after his transfer to a new facility, he encountered a correctional
officer who remembered him from the first prison as a "litigant," and
who allegedly subjected him to body searches, threats implying the possible use
of physical violence, and racial epithets. A federal appeals court found that
the prisoner alleged facts sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to
whether he had been subjected to unlawful retaliation for his role in the
litigation at his former facility, even though the officer who allegedly
threatened him had not been a defendant in that lawsuit. Reynolds-Bey v.
Spicer, #09-1472, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 7660 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
While there was evidence that the plaintiff
prisoner had asthma, the record did not support his argument that his level of
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in Michigan state prisons
amounted to a serious threat to his health in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, as opposed to "mere discomfort." His asthma was
"relatively minor," and could be managed through the use of an
inhaler and other medication. There also was insufficient evidence to support
his claim that he was transferred to another facility, with allegedly worse
ETS, in retaliation for complaining about ETS. Jones v. Caruso, #10-1515, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 8729; (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner filed a number of grievances concerning his
medical care, the confiscation of his tennis shoes, and his request to have an
extra blanket for medical purposes. A letter he sent to the director of the
state Department of Corrections regarding his grievances was regarded as abuse
or misuse of the grievance procedure, so he was placed on 12-month grievance
restriction. This restriction requires that all grievances be submitted as
verified affidavits, under penalty of discipline for lying, along with a list
of previously submitted grievances. He then sued, claiming that the grievance
restriction was retaliatory for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. A
federal appeals court upheld the rejection of this claim, finding the
prisoner's allegations "too general" to really show that he had
suffered an actual injury from the grievance restriction. Troutt v. Jones,
#10-6111, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5638 (10th Cir.).
A prisoner filed a grievance against a
correctional officer for allegedly smoking at an entrance to a prisoner housing
unit, in violation of Michigan law and prison regulations. He claimed that the
officer, in retaliation, came to his cell, despite having no duties there, and
ordered him to turn off his television, issuing him a misconduct slip when he
refused to do so. He was later placed in "Top Lock" for 12 days, lost
8 days' wages, and had four points added to his institutional record, all for
disobeying the order, despite the officer's admission that he had the right to
watch the television. These sanctions reduced his ability to move to a better
job, to obtain placement in a lower security facility, and to be paroled. Based
on these facts, a federal appeals court held that the prisoner could proceed
with his First Amendment retaliation claim. Taylor v. Lantagne, #08-1696, 2011
U.S. App. Lexis 7107 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner's claim that he was improperly
disciplined for defiance in retaliation for refusing to consent to an invasive
medical procedure should not have been dismissed. The trial court improperly
applied a subjective legal standard to the issue of whether the prisoner
suffered adversity from the alleged retaliatory act. The disciplinary action
resulted in his loss of 180 days of good time credit and confinement in
isolation for ten days. The sanctions imposed were more than minimal, as the
trial court seemed to regard them, and it was not required that the plaintiff
show that the sanctions imposed actually deterred him from exercising his
constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. Hanna v. Maxwell, #10-30053,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4335 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that correctional officers
retaliated against him for filing grievances by activating a "purge
fan" that caused the temperature in his cell to drop below freezing for
approximately four hours for three mornings in a row. A federal appeals court
upheld a jury determination that the plaintiff did not prove his claim. Bibbs
v. Early, #09-10557, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5767 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Prisoner's claims that prison officials and
employees treated him with hostility, left false notes in his cell, and seized
his bags of legal materials, thereby preventing him from filing legitimate
grievances, all in retaliation for complaining about prison conditions, were
more than minimal violations of his rights, if true, and should have been
examined by a fact-finder rather than dismissed. Kennedy v. Bonevelle,
#09-2289, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4157 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he was denied medical
treatment for his diabetes and Hepatitis C in retaliation for engaging in
protected First Amendment activity of speaking out about prison health needs
and seeking access to the courts. His complaint was dismissed under the
"three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Reversing, a federal appeals court held that his claim fell within an
"imminent danger" exception to the three strikes rule, since he claimed
that he was still receiving improper care for retaliatory reasons. Vandiver v.
Vasbinder, #08-2602, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6325 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that officials
retaliated against him for filing grievances by placing him in administrative
lockdown. The appeals court noted that an inmate is not required to show the
favorable outcome of a disciplinary case if he is alleging a retaliation claim.
As a result, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim as
barred because the disciplinary conviction had not been reversed or otherwise
set aside. The trial court also failed to address claims that the conditions in
lockdown violated the Eighth Amendment, which also were not barred on that
basis. Muse v. Sheriff's Dept., Ouachita Parish, #10-30521, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 25953 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show that an officer retaliated
against him for filing a grievance by confiscating his CD player, when the
officer offered undisputed evidence that he did not know of the inmate's filed
grievance at the time. Another officer, who subsequently confiscated his CDs
and lens cleaner was also entitled to summary judgment, as the prisoner failed
to refute the argument that this action was taken in reasonable pursuit of
enforcement of a prohibition against inmates owning CDs if they do not possess
a CD player. Rhodes v. Robinson, #08-16363, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18791 (Unpub.
9th Cir.).
An Arkansas prisoner claimed that an officer was
sexually harassing him and issued him false disciplinary citations in
retaliation for his filing of grievances about the harassment. After an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the retaliation lawsuit, since
the prisoner, following each instance of allegedly retaliatory discipline, was
found guilty at a disciplinary hearing. An inmate does not state a retaliation
claim where the discipline was imposed for an actual violation of prison rules.
Tatum v. Harmon; #10-1153, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24352 (Unpub. 8th Cir.).
A prisoner housed in a cell with a window claimed
that an officer refused, on five separate occasions, to turn on the lights in
his cell at 7 a.m. as required by department policy, depriving him of
artificial lighting in his cell during daylight hours for a total of eight
hours over a seven-month period. After he filed grievances against the officer
for this, the officer allegedly retaliated by calling the prisoner a
"snitch" in front of other inmates, and filed a false disciplinary
report against him. A federal appeals court found that the trial court
erroneously dismissed the retaliation claim because the prisoner was not
actually disciplined, as the retaliatory filing of false disciplinary charges
is enough to be the basis for a retaliation claim. Falsely labeling the
plaintiff a "snitch" in front of other prisoners could subject him to
the risk of substantial harm at the hands of other prisoners, and supported
both First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims. Claims concerning the failure
to turn on cell lights, which the prisoner claimed impeded his ability to do
legal work, in violation of his First Amendment rights, were rejected. Williams
v, Horner, #09-2927, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24463 (Unpub. 8th Cir.). Editor's
note: A judge dissenting in part argued that the majority, in allowing the
pursuit of the retaliation claim merely on the basis of a retaliatory filing of
false disciplinary charges failed to impose a necessary condition that the
retaliatory action be one that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from
exercising his First Amendment rights, and noted that in this case, the warden
dismissed the disciplinary charge against the prisoner.
A prisoner's claim that he was compelled to work
outdoors uprooting tree stumps in freezing cold weather without safety
instructions, protective gear, or gloves was sufficient to state a claim for
violation of the Eighth Amendment, requiring the reversal of the trial court's
dismissal of the lawsuit. The court also reinstated the prisoner's claim that
he was penalized for questioning the work assignment and making preparations to
sue, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Smith v. Peters, #10-1013,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 955 (7th Cir.).
A Louisiana prisoner claimed that correctional
officers sprayed him with an excessive amount of chemical irritant in
retaliation for his successful appeal of a prior unrelated prison disciplinary
conviction. A federal appeals court found that he had "alleged a
chronology of events from which retaliation may be plausibly inferred," given
the identity of a captain involved both in the filing of the disciplinary
charges and in the excessive force incident two weeks after his successful
appeal of the disciplinary conviction. The prisoner's retaliation and excessive
force claim were both reinstated on appeal. Williams v. Hinyard, #09-30396,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19212 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A federal appeals court concluded that the
plaintiff prisoner failed to produce any independent evidence that correctional
employees intentionally discarded or destroyed his personal property in
retaliation for him filing a complaint against a corrections officer at the
facility in which he was incarcerated. "In contrast, the defendants
presented substantial evidence" that his property was not in fact destroyed,
or, "even if it was, that the specific defendants whom he named in his
complaint had neither the means nor the opportunity to do so." The
prisoner also failed to show that the defendants intentionally discarded or
destroyed his grievances as a means of retaliation; particularly as he
successfully filed grievances during the period in which he alleged the
defendants retaliated against him. Melendez v. Wilson, #09-0722, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 20021 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A detainee at a county jail claimed that a shift
commander violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
"threatening him." He had asked why the jail was on lockdown, and the
shift commander allegedly said, "Top Secret, if I told you, I'd have to
kill you." The prisoner claimed that this statement was not in jest, and
that he feared for his life. When he filed a grievance concerning the incident,
he was allegedly confronted by the shift commander, who accused him of trying
to ruin her career, and warned him that she could make his stay "very
uncomfortable" if he did not "back off." Instead of relenting,
he filed a second grievance. He had no further contact with the shift
commander, and suffered no adverse consequences. Upholding summary judgment for
the defendant in the detainee's lawsuit, a federal appeals court found that the
trial court properly determined that the shift commander's alleged
"isolated comments, uncoupled from any adverse action, could not have
deterred a reasonable person from exercising his First Amendment rights."
Foster v. Powell, #09-2070, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24572 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court reinstated a federal
prisoner's civil rights lawsuit over his transfer to a lock-down unit in
another prison, since his claim that prison staff were being abusive in
retaliation for his protected conduct of filing grievances was "at least
plausible," and therefore should not have been dismissed as frivolous.
Transfer to a more restrictive environment with fewer privileges would deter a
"person of ordinary firmness" from exercising his right to file
grievances, so the plaintiff adequately alleged that the transfer was
retaliatory, and violated his First Amendment rights. Hill v. Lappin, #09-5575,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 26261 (6th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that a captain retaliated
against him for filing a grievance. Rejecting this claim, the appeals court
first noted that allegations of verbal abuse do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. Second, the captain's alleged failure to follow
prison procedures and regulations for the plaintiff's job transfer was
insufficient without additional facts to show a retaliatory motive. The
prisoner failed to present "direct evidence of motivation" or "a
chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred" in
support of his contention that the captain transferred him in retaliation for
his refusal to dismiss a grievance against another prison officer. Randolph v.
London, #10-30074, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23017 (Unpub.5th Cir.).
A prisoner transferred to a new facility filed
"numerous formal grievances" concerning the conditions of his
confinement, as well as grievances concerning the denials of those grievances.
Finally, he filed a civil rights lawsuit against sixteen correctional employees,
claiming that they had engaged in unlawful retaliation against him for
protected conduct, such as pursuing his grievances and a prior lawsuit. The
retaliation allegedly consisted of denying him proper housing, denying him the
non-smoking, compatible cellmates he requested, failing to properly investigate
or adjudicate his grievances, failing to provide him with required program
services, and failing to provide institutional support for a favorable parole
recommendation. He later added claims that one defendant also retaliated
against him by firing him from inmate employment, preventing him from receiving
outside work clearance, denying him access to mandatory program services, and
having his typewriter improperly confiscated. Upholding summary judgment for the
defendants, a federal appeals court found that the prisoner had failed to
produce any evidence, beyond his "bare assertions," that any of the
adverse actions taken against him were the result of unlawful retaliation. The
denials of housing and cellmate requests, in particular, were found to be based
on legitimate penological reasons. The prisoner was, in fact, transferred to a
non-smoking unit, but was unsatisfied because some prisoners were violating the
policy by sneaking cigarettes in. His two requests, that he be moved away from
harassing cellmates and housed in a non-smoking unit, were essentially granted.
The mere failure to allow the plaintiff to choose his own cellmates was not an
action adverse enough to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising
his constitutional rights. The denial of support for the prisoner's parole was
based on his failure to fully accept responsibility for his crime, which
involved traveling across state lines to have sexual relations with an underage
girl. His termination from a job as a prison janitor occurred after his prior
job as a "block runner" was discontinued, and was based on a poor
performance evaluation and inappropriate demeanor. The prisoner himself
expressed his wish not to be a janitor, and at one point refused to work. All
other claims were similarly rejected, and in some instances, such as the
confiscation of the typewriter, the prisoner failed to show that the individual
named as the responsible defendant was actually involved in the action. Alexander
v. Fritch, #10-2173, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20679 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
The majority of a three-judge federal appeals
panel rejected a prisoner's claim that a correctional employee had him
transferred to a higher-level security facility in unlawful retaliation for
having filed prison grievances, They agreed that filing such grievances
constituted constitutionally protected activity, but found that the prisoner's
assertions that the employee had "confronted" him about one such
grievance was insufficient to show a cause and effect relationship between the
filing of the grievance and the subsequent transfer, particularly as the
prisoner failed to show that the employee was involved in any way in the
decision to transfer him. A third member of the panel dissented, arguing that
the prisoner's assertion that the employee told him that he would be returning
to a higher security level, if true, could be used to infer that the employee
had some involvement in the transfer decision. The close proximity in time between
the confrontation with the employee and the transfer also might point to an act
of retaliation, the dissenter contended. Cantley v. Armstrong, #09-1092, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 17766 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A prisoner contended that a corrections officer
at a prison "started a chain of events" that resulted in him having a
stroke. He alleged that the officer denied him both breakfast and lunch on two
days in a row, resulting in his blood pressure going very high. The officer
also allegedly threatened the prisoner, warning him not to pursue a lawsuit,
which could constitute a claim for unlawful retaliation. Since the prisoner
claimed to suffer from diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart problems, he
might be able to establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
by the withholding of his meals. The trial court erred by dismissing the
lawsuit without giving the prisoner an opportunity to amend his complaint.
Zanders v. Ferko, #10-1796, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 16398 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that a correctional officer
had him removed from a job in the prison laundry in retaliation for a letter he
wrote to the governor complaining about the officer. The retaliation claim was
rejected, as there was no evidence refuting the officer's explanation that the
prisoner was removed from the job at his own request because he felt
"unsafe" there. Strope v. McKune, #09-3283, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
11956 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
While working as a computer lab tutor at a
prison, an inmate reminded his supervisor that an outside contractor had
recommended removing certain network restrictions. The prisoner contended that
the authorization of the new network amounted to a misappropriation of
government funds. Hours after the discussion, the supervisor told the inmate
that he might not be able to keep his job. The prisoner was, in fact,
terminated, but was reassigned to work as an education aide weeks later. His
new job had the exact same pay grade as his former job. Upholding the rejection
of the prisoner's First Amendment retaliation claim, the court found that even
if the termination had been in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional
right, the prisoner had not suffered a constitutional violation, as his pay
rate remained the same. Shelton v. Fox, #09-40264, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 11016
(Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A Texas prisoner claimed that he obeyed an
officer's orders to walk along the right side of a yellow line in an orderly
manner, but that minutes later, he was approached in his cell and handcuffed by
another officer for failing to follow the order. He was charged with a
disciplinary offense of creating a disturbance, allegedly in retaliation for
complaints his family had made about his treatment at the prison. The Texas
Supreme Court agreed that the hearing officer properly declined to call, as a
witness, the officer who handcuffed the prisoner, as he was not present at the
time of the alleged misconduct. Also, there was no evidence that the
disciplinary hearing resulted in any punishment that would be sufficient to
deter the prisoner from the exercise of his First Amendment rights, so his
retaliation claim failed. Institutional Division of Texas Dep't of Criminal
Justice v. Powell. #08-0345, 2010 Tex. Lexis 480.
An inmate who had worked in a prison
library claimed that the librarian unlawfully retaliated against him in
violation of his First Amendment rights because he had criticized library
policies. In response, the librarian allegedly initiated a series of false
disciplinary actions against him as well as false work evaluations, disposing
of his personal materials, and denying access to the library. The court ruled,
however, that the prisoner's speech was unprotected by the First Amendment as a
matter of law. With regard to his criticisms of the library's policies, he had
openly challenged directives issued by the librarian in front of other inmate
law clerks, which was inconsistent with legitimate penological interests, which
was also true of the "confrontational" manner in which he complained
about his personal material, interfering with prison discipline and order.
Watkins v. Kasper, #08-3105, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6954 (7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict finding
that corrections officers did not retaliate against him in violation of his
First Amendment rights. Further, the alleged conduct of confiscating his
eyeglasses and verbally threatening him did not rise to the level of an Eighth
Amendment violation, since there was no indication that these actions caused
him sufficiently serious harm or injury. Felder v. Filion, #08-1767, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 4680 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
A jury returned a verdict in favor of
prison officials on an inmate's claim that they removed him from his prison law
library job in retaliation for his protected First Amendment activities of
filing grievances and civil rights lawsuits and helping other prisoners do so.
On appeal, this result was upheld. The trial court properly denied a motion to
bar evidence that the prisoner was removed from his prison job because
officials suspected him of stealing copy paper. This evidence was relevant to
their defense that their actions were not retaliatory for protected activity.
While testimony about information prison officials received from a confidential
informant was hearsay, it was not offered to show the truth of the accusation
that the prisoner stole paper, but merely that the officials suspected that he
had and acted on the basis of that suspicion. Hale v. McMillen, #09-2737, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 2249 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
A prisoner's statement that he would file and pursue a
grievance against a prison employee if she failed to assist him in obtaining
footlockers could be constitutionally protected conduct under the First
Amendment, requiring the reinstatement of his dismissed First Amendment claim
that the employee unlawfully retaliated against him by taking actions that
subjected him to the possibility of receiving a major misconduct ticket. Pasley
v. Conerly, #08-2132, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21364 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld the award of $1 in
compensatory damages and $2,500 in punitive damages to a prisoner on his claim
that a disciplinary charge was filed against him in retaliation for his having
filed a grievance against a correctional officer for allegedly cursing at him
and threatening him. The trial court did not clearly err in determining that
the officer would not have filed the disciplinary charge against the prisoner
in the absence of a retaliatory motive. The disciplinary report accused the
prisoner of having made false statements in his grievance. Haynes v.
Stephenson, #08-3766, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 27433 (8th Cir.).
The chronology of events surrounding a
prisoner's transfer to a new facility was sufficient to assert a possible claim
for retaliatory transfer against a deputy warden. The prisoner claimed that the
defendant transferred him for filing a grievance against him. Williams v.
Brown, #08-16230, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20193 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
While there had been "some issues"
concerning the plaintiff prisoner's allegedly excessive book requests through
the prison library system, he failed to show that the defendant library
director had anything to do with the problem, or that the defendant conspired
with other prison employees to retaliate against him for filing a grievance, in
violation of his First Amendment rights. Zulu v. Botta, #05-CV-6529, 2009 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 40762 (W.D.N.Y.).
Prisoner failed to establish a denial of access to
the courts based on failure to grant him requested library time when he could
not show that he had suffered any actual injury to his ability to litigate his
claims. He also failed to show that disciplinary actions taken against him was
in retaliation for his pursuit of his claims. Bandey-Bey v. Crist, No. 08-2084,
578 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2009).
A prisoner's claim that he was disciplined for
sending a note to another prisoner, which violated a legitimate regulation, was
an insufficient basis for a claim of unlawful retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment. The prisoner did allege sufficient facts to create a due
process claim regarding the alleged denial of his right to call requested
witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. He claimed that despite having requested
these witnesses repeatedly before and during the hearing, an officer falsely
wrote down that no witnesses were requested. No argument was presented that the
witnesses were denied for reasons of institutional safety or other legitimate correctional
objectives, and the requested witnesses appeared to have information relevant
to the prisoner's claim that a correctional officer was spreading false rumors
that h was a "snitch" and that some inmates had been bribed to
testify falsely against him. Moulds v. Bullard, #08-10706, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
18296 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Disciplinary determination finding prisoner
guilty of drug possession and smuggling was supported by "some
evidence" including reports that a prison official saw him swallow
something, that drugs were found in his feces, and that drugs were found in his
room. The fact that the determination was reversed, and that a second hearing
officer reached a different result did not show, by itself, that the first
hearing officer was biased. The prisoner also failed to allege that the
purportedly false reports of his involvement in drug offenses were issued out
of a retaliatory purpose. Requiring the prisoner to defecate within the view of
others in a drug watch room did not violate his right to privacy. Sital v.
Burgio, 06-CV-6072, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1127 (W.D.N.Y.).
When a prisoner gave advice to a fellow inmate
about how to file a grievance, he was not engaged in constitutionally protected
speech. His own filing of grievances, however, as well as his statements about
his intention to file grievances against a treatment program assistant, were
protected speech. The prisoner failed to show that the assistant retaliated
against him because of the grievances, since his grievances were a response to
her actions, not the cause of them. Coleman v. Beale, #07-CV-6219, 2009 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 58465 (W.D.N.Y.).
A prisoner did not have a right to review all the
potentially inculpatory evidence before a disciplinary hearing began. Additionally,
while he complained of not receiving certain documentary evidence at all, it
was provided to him orally. His claim that he was denied the right to call
witnesses was contradicted by the fact that he did, in fact, call a witness,
and his failure to name any particular witness he was allegedly prevented from
calling. His general attack on the hearing officer as "immoral, not
impartial and not unbiased" was not supported by any particulars. There
was, the court found, "some evidence" in the record to support
disciplinary action against the prisoner, and no proof of a violation of his
due process rights. The prisoner also failed to show that the incident report
was filed against him in retaliation for his prior filing of a federal civil
rights lawsuit, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Lasko v. Holt,
#08-4216, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11482 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
While a prison guard's alleged action of
displaying a noose could not reasonably have been interpreted by a prisoner as
constituting a threat against him, and was not, therefore, cruel and unusual
punishment, the trial court should not have dismissed the prisoner's claim that
he was unlawfully retaliated against, including suffering the loss of his
prison job, in response to his pursuit of a grievance over the incident. Dobbey
v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, #08-2828, 574 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2009).
While the plaintiff inmate asserted that false
disciplinary reports, for which he was sanctioned, were filed against him in
retaliation for his use of the grievance system, he produced no evidence of
this except for the timing of the discipline, and did not show that his filing
of grievances was a motivating or a substantial factor in the decision to file
three misconduct reports against him. The defendants presented evidence that
they had legitimate penological reasons for the filing of the reports.
Toussaint v. Good, #08-3751, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14991 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An inmate accused prison officials of violating
his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for writing a pamphlet
that encouraged other prisoners to engage in work stoppages. Such work
stoppages, the court stated, were deliberate disruptions of prison order, and
restrictions on prisoners' rights to organize and petition were reasonable when
inmate grievance procedures were available. Advocacy of such work stoppages
were not entitled to First Amendment protection when less disruptive means of
pursuing grievances were available. Pilgrim v. Luther, #07-1950, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 14588 (2nd Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that subjecting him to a
disciplinary hearing for using vulgar or indecent language in a note mailed to
opposing counsel violated his First Amendment rights. Rejecting this claim, a
federal appeals court found that the note, which was written on toilet paper,
resembled a threat and showed a "completely unjustified" disrespect
for authority. It used "unacceptably vulgar" language that would not
be tolerated in the free setting. Imposition of discipline for writing the note
helped correct behavior that would prejudice the prisoner when he left prison.
Morgan v. Quarterman, #07-41064, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12325 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he suffered unlawful
retaliation, in violation of his First Amendment rights, after he provided
assistance in legal matters to other prisoners. The retaliation supposedly
included deprivation of property, improper segregation, and interference with
his right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court found that the
plaintiff prisoner failed to show that the defendants' actions affected his
ability to pursue his legal claims, or that the conditions in segregation
imposed a major hardship. The court ordered further proceedings, however, on
the claim that he was deprived of property in retaliation for his legal
assistance to other inmates, and that he provided this assistance to try to
protect constitutional rights or achieve social change, activities protected by
the First Amendment. Taylor v. McSwain, #08-12238, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12858
(Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Rejecting a prisoner's claim that he had faced a
false disciplinary charge in retaliation for his exercise of his First
Amendment rights, the court ruled that any adversity suffered was minimal since
the disciplinary charges were dropped after a week, no sanctions resulted, and
the prisoner was afforded several opportunities to give his side of the facts
to neutral persons. Starr v. Dube, #08-1322, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13552 (Unpub.
1st Cir.).
Prisoner failed to establish a denial of access
to the courts based on failure to grant him requested library time when he
could not show that he had suffered any actual injury to his ability to
litigate his claims. He also failed to show that disciplinary actions taken
against him was in retaliation for his pursuit of his claims. Bandey-Bey v.
Crist, No. 08-2084, 578 F.3d 763 (8th Cir. 2009).
A prisoner failed to show a causal connection
between his transfer, his loss of his bed after he was taken to a hospital for
treatment, and his filing of a grievance over an incident in which he was
allegedly "yanked" out of a shower and "paraded" naked back
to his cell. The court therefore rejected his First Amendment retaliation
claim. The court also found that the defendant correctional employees were
entitled to qualified immunity on the prisoner's claim that the shower incident
violate his Eighth Amendment rights, as he had no clearly established right not
to have his naked body exposed in prison. Solan v. Ranck, #07-4571, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 9987 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
An affidavit from another prisoner, which was the
only evidence a plaintiff inmate showed of retaliation against him for filing a
grievance, actually showed that officials were motivated to place him in
administrative segregation by his dangerousness, not his grievance filing. They
would have taken the same actions even if he had never filed the grievance,
based on his gang affiliation and his long history of violent and abusive
behavior. Denying the prisoner newspapers did not violate the First Amendment,
but was an acceptable policy decision for officials trying to achieve
legitimate goals. The court also rejected the claim that the prisoner's rights
were violated by him being forced to wear a paper gown after he was found
casting a string between cells to try to pass notes and other items. Soto v.
Bertrand, #08-2540, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9901 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
A prisoner did not have a right to review all the
potentially inculpatory evidence before a disciplinary hearing began.
Additionally, while he complained of not receiving certain documentary evidence
at all, it was provided to him orally. His claim that he was denied the right
to call witnesses was contradicted by the fact that he did, in fact, call a
witness, and his failure to name any particular witness he was allegedly
prevented from calling. His general attack on the hearing officer as
"immoral, not impartial and not unbiased" was not supported by any
particulars. There was, the court found, "some evidence" in the
record to support disciplinary action against the prisoner, and no proof of a
violation of his due process rights. The prisoner also failed to show that the
incident report was filed against him in retaliation for his prior filing of a
federal civil rights lawsuit, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Lasko
v. Holt, #08-4216, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11482 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds the rejection of a
prisoner's claims that he faced retaliation for exercising his right of access
to the courts both in filing his own lawsuits, and in providing legal advice to
other prisoners. The court notes that providing legal advice to other prisoners
is not entitled to any greater First Amendment protection than communication
with fellow inmates on any other topic. The prisoner failed to show any
specific harm that the alleged retaliation caused to the progress of his
lawsuits. Gronquist v. Deshazer, No. 06-35024, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19856
(Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A prisoner had no protected First Amendment right
to make disrespectful comments about prison officials in his outgoing mail to
them, calling them "evil," "unmerciful," and
"inhumane." The court rejected the prisoner's claim that prison
officials had unlawfully retaliated against him for his statements, in
violation of his First Amendment rights. Huff v. Mahon, No. 08-6568, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 3605 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
Prisoner stated a viable First Amendment claim in
alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for making a statement in
support of a wrongful death lawsuit against them. Bridges v. Gilbert, No.
07-1551, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5129 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner claimed that he suffered unlawful
retaliation, in violation of his First Amendment rights, after he provided
assistance in legal matters to other prisoners. The retaliation supposedly
included deprivation of property, improper segregation, and interference with
his right of access to the courts. A federal appeals court found that the
plaintiff prisoner failed to show that the defendants' actions affected his
ability to pursue his legal claims, or that the conditions in segregation
imposed a major hardship. The court ordered further proceedings, however, on
the claim that he was deprived of property in retaliation for his legal
assistance to other inmates, and that he provided this assistance to try to
protect constitutional rights or achieve social change, activities protected by
the First Amendment. Taylor v. McSwain, #08-12238, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12858
(Unpub. 11th Cir.)
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
defendants confiscated his property in retaliation for his previous filing of
grievances, since he failed to show a causal relationship between the decision
to confiscate the property and his prior actions. Royster v. Beard, No.
08-3353, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 1364 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A prisoner failed to show a sequence of events
from which it could be inferred that allegedly false disciplinary charges were
filed against him in retaliation for his filing of complaints against
correctional personnel. Mahogany v. Rogers, No. 06-31144, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
18635 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Even if one of the correctional officials were
found to have entrapped a prisoner into a disciplinary violation, as he
claimed, there was no showing that this was done in retaliation for the
prisoner's testimony in a federal class action lawsuit against the correctional
facility. Summary judgment for the defendants was therefore appropriate in the
prisoner's First Amendment lawsuit. Clark v. Johnston, Case No. 4:07 CV 941,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 101483 (N.D. Ohio).
A prisoner could go forward with his claim that
he suffered retaliatory action in connection with a transfer on the basis of
his actions concerning a grievance, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
The prisoner presented a plausible claim of retaliation on the basis of a memo
requesting the transfer which was submitted outside of the normal procedure for
such requests, and which spoke about his attempts to "create unrest"
among other prisoners. Milligan v. Reed, Civil Action No. 06-cv-00911, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 70864 (D. Colo.)
There was a lack of evidence that a prison
employee who filed a disciplinary report against a prisoner had knowledge of
his prior federal civil rights lawsuit, justifying summary judgment on the
prisoner's retaliation claims. Bennett v. Goord, No. 06-3818, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 24441 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that prison official violated
his rights by conducting a biased hearing at which he was convicted on a false
charge, and by failing to explain the evidence relied on, was barred under Heck
v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), since a favorable result in the
lawsuit would imply the invalidity of the loss of good time credits, impacting
on the length of his confinement, and the disciplinary determination had not
been set aside. A claim that the prison official who allegedly filed a false
disciplinary charge against him did so in retaliation for his cooperation in an
internal investigation at the facility was barred because the disciplinary
determination was supported by some evidence. Davis v. Baughman, No. 07-1581,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2541 (8th Cir.).
Texas detainee failed to show that limits on his
access to the law library or to a typewriter resulted in any actual injury in
pending court actions. The plaintiff, an alien, also asserted claims that an
attorney for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "and her
ghost," the "reincarnated Jezebel Princess of Evil" appeared
before him while he slept at night or showered, causing him mental distress.
The court ruled that these claims were "obviously frivolous." The court
also rejected claims that the prisoner had suffered unlawful retaliation for
pursuing his claims against the attorney and her "ghost," since a
retaliation claim cannot be based on underlying claims that are frivolous.
Maringo v. McGuirk, No. 07-20163, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4720 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner's motion seeking an appointed lawyer
was denied. The prisoner's claims against correctional officers, including
claims that they retaliated against him after he filed a grievance by putting
him in keep-lock status for 16 days and slapping his face had survived a motion
to dismiss. Based on the "clarity" and "comprehensiveness"
of his filed complaint, as well as his ability to "articulate," the
court believed that the prisoner would be able to assert his case to the finder
of fact without difficulty, and that he understood the legal issues relevant to
his claims, which were not complicated. Headley v. Fisher, No. 06 Civ. 6331,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 51986 (S.D.N.Y.).
A prisoner could go forward with his claim that
he suffered retaliatory action in connection with a transfer on the basis of
his actions concerning a grievance, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
The prisoner presented a plausible claim of retaliation on the basis of a memo
requesting the transfer which was submitted outside of the normal procedure for
such requests, and which spoke about his attempts to "create unrest"
among other prisoners. Milligan v. Reed, Civil Action No. 06-cv-00911, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 70864 (D. Colo.)
There was a lack of evidence that a prison
employee who filed a disciplinary report against a prisoner had knowledge of
his prior federal civil rights lawsuit, justifying summary judgment on the
prisoner's retaliation claims. Bennett v. Goord, No. 06-3818, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 24441 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
Prisoner, under Illinois administrative
procedures, did not have a right to confront or cross-examine witnesses at his
disciplinary hearing, but was able to submit questions for the witnesses to the
disciplinary committee before the hearing, which would be asked unless the
committee found them to be irrelevant, cumulative, or a threat to individual
safety or institutional security. Because the prisoner failed to raise a
constitutional objection and failed to comply with the authorized procedures,
he could not pursue his claim that he had been "retaliated" against
for attempting to "present evidence" to the committee. Johnson v.
Evinger, No. 06-2103, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2555 (7th Cir.).
A prisoner's conduct in filing grievances was activity
protected by the First Amendment, and there was sufficient evidence to support
an inference that the unit manager of his cell block was motivated by
retaliation for such grievances in placing him in administrative custody and
later transferring him to a different prison. The unit manager showed, however,
that the same steps would have been taken for legitimate penological reasons,
regardless of the inmate's grievances, so there was no showing that retaliation
caused the administrative custody or transfer. The court also found no evidence
that these actions were taken on the basis of the prisoner's religious
affiliation. Holbrook v. Walters, No. 08-2080, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 21679
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Even if one of the correctional officials were found
to have entrapped a prisoner into a disciplinary violation, as he claimed,
there was no showing that this was done in retaliation for the prisoner's
testimony in a federal class action lawsuit against the correctional facility.
Summary judgment for the defendants was therefore appropriate in the prisoner's
First Amendment lawsuit. Clark v. Johnston, Case No. 4:07 CV 941, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 101483 (N.D. Ohio).
Prisoner showed that officer filed a false
disciplinary charge against him for filing a grievance against him for cursing
and threatening the prisoner in violation of department policy. While the
disciplinary charges were later dismissed, the prisoner suffered six days of
isolation, during which he received showers only every three days and had
restricted exercise privileges. He was awarded $1 in nominal damages, as he had
not suffered any physical injuries. The prisoner was also awarded $2,500 in
punitive damages for the officer's malicious disregard for his right to access
the courts. Haynes v. Stephenson, Case No. 5:07CV00295, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
81571 (E.D. Ark.).
There was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a
correctional officer retaliated against him for filing grievances by writing up
false disciplinary reports and intentionally closing a cell door on him,
resulting in injury. Shaw v. Cowart, No. 07-14884, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23500
(Unpub.11th Cir.).
A prisoner could go forward with his claim that
he suffered retaliatory action in connection with a transfer on the basis of
his actions concerning a grievance, in violation of his First Amendment rights.
The prisoner presented a plausible claim of retaliation on the basis of a memo
requesting the transfer which was submitted outside of the normal procedure for
such requests, and which spoke about his attempts to "create unrest"
among other prisoners. Milligan v. Reed, Civil Action No. 06-cv-00911, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 70864 (D. Colo.).
Prisoner adequately alleged that a correctional
officer seized and destroyed his family photographs from his cell in
retaliation for grievances that he had filed or threatened to file against the
officer. The court rejected his cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection,
and due process claims. Olmsted v. Sherman, No.08-cv-439, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
67391 (W.D. Wis.).
Prisoner failed to show that his transfer to
another facility was in retaliation for his pursuit of grievances, or that his
grievances were denied in retaliation, rather than because the defendant
officials believed that they had no merit. Additionally, the defendants
presented "plausible and independent" reasons for transferring him.
It was also undisputed that he had previously requested a transfer, and that
the transfer moved him 200 miles closer to his home. Alexander v. Forr, No.
06-4467, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18682 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A Delaware inmate failed to show that he had been
subjected to unlawful retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights by
having a misconduct report filed against him after he allegedly reported
violations of prison rules in the kitchen where he was assigned to work, and by
being subsequently disciplined and transferred following a finding of guilty on
the charged infractions. The inmate failed to show that he had been engaged in
constitutionally protected speech before he was fired from his kitchen job,
since he only made informal verbal complaints about kitchen incidents, and
failed to file any formal grievances or complaints. St. Louis v. Morris, Civ.
No. 06-236, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57203 (D. Del.)
A prisoner in a private prison in Texas had a
First Amendment right to write to the Wyoming Department of Corrections
Director asking to be returned to Wyoming and complaining about the conditions
of his confinement, and stated a valid claim against seven prison employees
contending that they retaliated against him for doing so. He also asserted a
valid claim for unconstitutional deprivation of his funds by alleging that he
was fined $50 because he testified in another prisoner's disciplinary hearing.
Pfeh v. Freudenthal, No. 07-10312, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12897 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
Trial court improperly failed to recognize that a
prisoner could have a First Amendment right to make "unflattering"
statements to prison staff members in outgoing mail to his parents. The court
should have analyzed whether the letters in question, which were allegedly
censored and/or seized, fell within any identifiable categories of mail
presented a threat to security and order. The court ordered further proceedings
on the prisoner's claims concerning his personal correspondence, as well as on
claims that he faced retaliation for statements made in the letters. Berenguel
v. Bell, No. 07-10066, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13597 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A prisoner in a private prison in Texas had a
First Amendment right to write to the Wyoming Department of Corrections
Director asking to be returned to Wyoming and complaining about the conditions
of his confinement, and stated a valid claim against seven prison employees
contending that they retaliated against him for doing so. He also asserted a
valid claim for unconstitutional deprivation of his funds by alleging that he
was fined $50 because he testified in another prisoner's disciplinary hearing.
Pfeh v. Freudenthal, No. 07-10312, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12897 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
Trial court improperly failed to recognize that a
prisoner could have a First Amendment right to make "unflattering"
statements to prison staff members in outgoing mail to his parents. The court
should have analyzed whether the letters in question, which were allegedly
censored and/or seized, fell within any identifiable categories of mail
presented a threat to security and order. The court ordered further proceedings
on the prisoner's claims concerning his personal correspondence, as well as on
claims that he faced retaliation for statements made in the letters. Berenguel
v. Bell, No. 07-10066, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13597 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
There was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a
prison employee who moved an inmate from the first to the second floor did so
in retaliation for the prisoner having previously filed grievances and a
lawsuit, requiring further proceedings on his First Amendment claim. Cross v.
Dretke, No. 06-40513, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 17207 (5th Cir.).
An Ohio state statute allowing correctional
officials to designate "at least" one tobacco-free housing area
within a correctional facility also allowed them to declare the entire facility
tobacco-free. The defendants also had authority to discipline the plaintiff
prisoner for violating a ban on smoking, so doing so did not constitute
impermissible "harassment" or "retaliation." Call v. Ohio
Dept. of Rehabilitation & Corrections, No. 06AP-1057, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis
2451 (10th Dist, Franklin County).
Prisoner's six-month disciplinary confinement did
not violate a constitutionally protected interest, so that he could not obtain
damages on his claim that a search of his cell, which resulted in finding of a
homemade knife, and subsequent discipline, was retaliatory for his having filed
a grievance, or that his disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights.
McKeithan v. Jones, No. 05-2238, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 329 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that he was subjected to
unlawful retaliation after he filed a grievance against an officer. The officer
filed a misconduct report against him, which provided information concerning a
fight between the inmate's children and the officer's children at school. The
prisoner failed to show that the subsequent proceedings, which resulted in him
being put into administrative custody and transferred, constituted unlawful
retaliation. First, there was evidence that the officer had no involvement in
what occurred after filing the report, and that institutional stability and
safety required the separation of the officer and prisoner after the fight
between their children occurred. Davis v. Pennsylvania State, No. 06-5188, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 17819 (3rd Cir.).
Inmate failed to provide sufficient documentation
to show that he missed a filing deadline because of actions by prison officials
which had the effect of denying him access to the courts, either as to his
direct criminal appeal or his post-conviction petition. The prisoner also
failed to file a brief in opposition to the defendant officials' motion for
summary judgment as to the effect of their actions on two civil lawsuits, so
that summary judgment was also granted on claims related to those cases.
Finally, the prisoner also failed to show that prison officials retaliated
against him for engaging in protected activity of attempting to access the
courts. Gordon v. Lappin, No. 06-4154, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11977 (3rd Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that he was subjected to
retaliation and a "fabricated" misconduct complaint for expressing an
opinion about which television channel inmates would watch was properly
dismissed as frivolous. A First Amendment retaliation claim could not be based
on this, as expressing such an opinion was not protected speech. Wilson v.
Budgeon, No. 07-1607, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22086 (3rd Cir.).
While the working conditions in the prison
commissary were "perhaps uncomfortable," they did not violate the
plaintiff prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual
punishment. The prisoner also failed to show that he was improperly transferred
from his commissary job in retaliation for his grievances against his
supervisors. Toolasprashad v. Wright, No. 06-3784, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19875
(3rd Cir.).
A Florida prisoner failed to show that prison
officials altered his work assignment in retaliation for his pursuit of
grievances, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Brown v. Mache, No.
07-10034, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12326 (11th Cir.).
Prisoner could proceed with his First Amendment
claim that a housing lieutenant falsely accused him of misconduct, causing his
placement in a special housing unit in retaliation for his having filed a
grievance against the lieutenant. Rivera v. Selsky, No. 9:05-CV-0967, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 23064 (N.D.N.Y.).
California prisoner stated a possible First
Amendment claim by alleging that correctional officers confined him to his
quarters and destroyed two of his "recycled art statutes" in
retaliation for his having filed a grievance against two other correctional
officers. The alleged conduct, however, did not violate his Eighth Amendment
rights, and also did not violate his due process rights since he did not have a
liberty interest in avoiding confinement to his quarters, and the destruction
of the statutes, allegedly his property, was not "authorized." Davis
v. Calif. Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:06-cv-01062, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26507
(E.D. Cal.).
Prisoner allowed to amend his lawsuit to further
explain his claim that he was suspended from a softball league and a hobby
craft program in retaliation for having filed grievances, in violation of his
First Amendment rights. The court found that his lawsuit did not adequately
establish due process claims, because he had no protected liberty interest in
remaining in the recreational programs from which he had been suspended. Bigbee
v. Nalley, No. 07-C-71, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25336 (W.D. Wis.).
Prisoner did not establish a First Amendment
claim when he failed to show a connection between the alleged retaliation
against him and the grievances he had previously filed. Bartelli v. Galabinski,
No. 06-1545, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8853 (3rd Cir.).
Evidence supported a jury determination that a
prison supervisor fired inmate from his prison job and filed a false
disciplinary report against him for filing a grievance against him in violation
of his First Amendment rights. Appeals court upholds award of nominal damages
of $1 and punitive damages of $500 against the supervisor, but finds no basis
for liability against other defendants, including the prison warden,
administrative review board member, a grievance officer, and a prison
counselor, since there was no evidence that they were personally responsible
for the actions against the plaintiff. Henderson v. Johnson, No. 04-CV-3037,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17900 (C.D. Ill.).
Male prisoner failed to show a violation of
Fourth Amendment privacy rights or 8th Amendment rights based on female
correctional officers' alleged intentional observation of him in the shower or
in his housing unit nude or in various undressed states, but the court ordered
further proceedings on his claims that he was subsequently "ogled"
multiple times in retaliation for his pursuit of grievances over the
observations. The court dismissed claims based on a correctional officers
alleged actions in informing inmates and staff members that the plaintiff was a
homosexual, child molester, and/or rapist. Morris v. Newland, No. CIV
S-00-2794, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15725 (E.D. Cal.).
In a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
correctional officers made threats of physical violence against him, as well as
threats of disciplinary action, to deter him from filing grievances, an
officer's statement that "something drastic" would occur if the
prisoner continued filing grievances, and a second officer's statement that the
prisoner should "learn to play the game or have a boot put in your
ass" could be found by a reasonable jury to be threats of violence aimed
at retaliating against the prisoner for engaged in protected First Amendment
activity. Pittman v. Tucker, No. 06-11454, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 381 (11th
Cir.).
Prisoner failed to show that retaliation against
him for testifying against an officer, in violation of his First Amendment
rights, was the reason he was placed in administrative detention and then
transferred to another facility. These events occurred after the officer filed
disciplinary charges against the inmate when he discovered a diagram of the
facility's kitchen in the prisoner's cell. Gay v. Shannon, No. 06-1325, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 31742 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
Even if a prisoner's letters to the governor were
constitutionally protected First Amendment activities, he failed to show that
he had been transferred in retaliation for writing them, when his "poor
behavior," including three acts of misconduct, provided a sufficient basis
for his transfer. Jerry v. Williamson, No. 06-1606, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31325
(3rd Cir.).
Prisoner who was held in administrative
segregation for three years at three different Colorado prisons asserted
several non-frivolous claims, including for unlawful retaliation against him
for complaining about his segregation, complete denial of outdoor exercise, and
denial of access to "church fellowship," and the prison law library.
Fogle v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., No. 05-1405, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 2024 (10th
Cir.).[2006 JB Mar]
Prisoner failed to show that a search of his cell
and the confiscation of legal papers he possessed which belonged to other
prisoners was unlawful retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment
rights in issuing a subpoena to the prison warden in a pending case. Peterson
v. Lucero, No. 04-2318, 165 Fed. Appx. 657 (10th Cir. 2006).
Even if a prisoner's letters to the governor were
constitutionally protected First Amendment activities, he failed to show that
he had been transferred in retaliation for writing them, when his "poor
behavior," including three acts of misconduct, provided a sufficient basis
for his transfer. Jerry v. Williamson, No. 06-1606, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31325
(3rd Cir.).
Federal appeals court allows class action
challenging conditions of confinement for civilly committed "Sexually
Violent Predators" in California to proceed on most claims, including
claims involving procedural and substantive due process, privacy, excessive
force, access to courts, unlawful retaliation for grievances or lawsuits, and
forced medication in non-emergency situations. Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 13497 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Prisoner failed to show that retaliation against
him for testifying against an officer, in violation of his First Amendment
rights, was the reason he was placed in administrative detention and then
transferred to another facility. These events occurred after the officer filed
disciplinary charges against the inmate when he discovered a diagram of the
facility's kitchen in the prisoner's cell. Gay v. Shannon, No. 06-1325, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 31742 (3rd Cir.).
Evidence showed that prisoner's property was not
destroyed in retaliation for his filing of a grievance over it being
confiscation, but instead because prison officials believed it to be
contraband. Buehl v. Beard, No. 03-1313, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68642 (W.D.
Pa.).
Prisoner stated a valid claim for retaliation in
violation of his First Amendment rights by alleging that he was intentionally
transferred to a facility lacking rehabilitation programs as punishment for his
having filed a lawsuit challenging the failure of correctional officials to
provide him with rehabilitation programs ordered by a court for treatment of
psychological and psychiatric problems. The claim did not challenge the
defendants' right, in general, to transfer the prisoner, but rather asserted
that they did so, in this instance, for an improper motive. Price v. Wall, No.
Civ. A. 05-3898, 428 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.R.I. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that a federal correctional
officer retaliated against him for his intention to file a grievance against
him by taking actions leading to the prisoner's administrative segregation
stated a viable claim for violation of the First Amendment. Johnson v. Sadzewicz,
No. 05-71083, 426 F. Supp. 2d 635 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
Prisoner stated a valid claim for retaliation in
violation of his First Amendment rights by alleging that he was intentionally
transferred to a facility lacking rehabilitation programs as punishment for his
having filed a lawsuit challenging the failure of correctional officials to
provide him with rehabilitation programs ordered by a court for treatment of
psychological and psychiatric problems. The claim did not challenge the
defendants' right, in general, to transfer the prisoner, but rather asserted
that they did so, in this instance, for an improper motive. Price v. Wall, No.
Civ. A. 05-3898, 428 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.R.I. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that he was transferred to
a less desirable job assignment in retaliation for filing grievances was
insufficient to show a violation of his First Amendment rights, but his
assertion, if true, that he was transferred to an inferior and more dangerous
prison for retaliatory reasons did state a claim. Morris v. Powell, No.
05-40578, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12033 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Muslim prisoner who claimed he suffered
retaliation from prison officials for complaining about alleged religious
discrimination failed to show that the alleged "retaliation" resulted
in any harm, barring his claim. Court further finds that the prisoner's
employment by the California Prison Industry Authority did not make him an
"employee" for purposes of a Title VII claim under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e. Wade v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, No.
05-15653, 171 Fed. Appx. 601 (9th Cir. 2006).
Pennsylvania prisoner failed to present evidence
from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was fired from his prison
kitchen job in retaliation for having filed grievances against his supervisor.
The evidence showed that complaints about his work performance were present
before he filed any grievances. Williams v. Meyers, No. 03-3938, 165 Fed. Appx.
201 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Prisoner claiming that he was improperly
retaliated against by being falsely disciplined for having written a letter and
filed a prior lawsuit against prison staff members was not required to
"establish" either the legal or factual elements of his claim in his
complaint, but merely say enough to provide the defendants with adequate notice
of his claim. Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit was not barred by
finding, by prison disciplinary board, that his statements in his prior letter
and lawsuit were false. Simpson v. Nickel, No. 05-4686, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir.
2006). [2006 JB Aug]
The decision by a prison nurse to place a
prisoner in four-point restraint was not shown to be retaliation for his prior
lawsuits against other prison personnel, when there was no evidence that the
nurse even knew of those lawsuits, and she was not named as a defendant in a
lawsuit until after the incident. Ziemba v. Clark, No. 05-1613, 167 Fed. Appx.
831 (2nd Cir. 2006).
Prisoner claiming that he was improperly
retaliated against by being falsely disciplined for having written a letter and
filed a prior lawsuit against prison staff members was not required to
"establish" either the legal or factual elements of his claim in his
complaint, but merely say enough to provide the defendants with adequate notice
of his claim. Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit was not barred by
finding, by prison disciplinary board, that his statements in his prior letter
and lawsuit were false. Simpson v. Nickel, No. 05-4686, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir.
2006). [2006 JB Aug]
First Amendment challenge by a class of prisoners
to a federal Bureau of Prisons program statement and institutional policy
barring the showing of unedited R-rated movies to inmates rejected. The
prohibition was rationally related to legitimate governmental interests in
promoting the rehabilitation of prisoners. Prisoners had adequate alternative
means to exercise their First Amendment rights, including access to G, PG, and
PG-13 rated films, as well as R-rated films that had been edited for
television. Jewell v. Gonzales, No. 97-408, 420 F. Supp. 2d 406 (W.D. Pa.
2006). [N/R]
Prisoner's allegation that he was transferred to
a less desirable job assignment in retaliation for filing grievances was
insufficient to show a violation of his First Amendment rights, but his
assertion, if true, that he was transferred to an inferior and more dangerous
prison for retaliatory reasons did state a claim. Morris v. Powell, No.
05-40578, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12033 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
etaliatory reasons did state a claim. Morris v.
Powell, No. 05-40578, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12033 (5th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Federal appeals court allows class action
challenging conditions of confinement for civilly committed "Violent
Predators" in California to proceed on most claims, including claims
involving procedural and substantive due process, privacy, excessive force,
access to courts, unlawful retaliation for grievances or lawsuits, and forced
medication in non-emergency situations. Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 13497 (9th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Prisoner failed to show that a search of his cell
and the confiscation of legal papers he possessed which belonged to other
prisoners was unlawful retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment
rights in issuing a subpoena to the prison warden in a pending case. Peterson
v. Lucero, No. 04-2318, 165 Fed. Appx. 657 (10th Cir. 2006).
Texas prisoner stated a viable claim of unlawful
retaliation against correctional officer who allegedly repeatedly harassed and
threatened him with physical abuse for refusal to work as a prison informant,
and for failing to supply the names of prison employees allegedly involved in
drug trafficking. David v. Hill, No. C.A.C-04-673, 401 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D.
Tex. 2005).
Texas prisoner stated a viable claim of unlawful
retaliation against correctional officer who allegedly repeatedly harassed and
threatened him with physical abuse for refusal to work as a prison informant,
and for failing to supply the names of prison employees allegedly involved in
drug trafficking. David v. Hill, No. C.A.C-04-673, 401 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D.
Tex. 2005).
Correctional officer was properly denied summary
judgment on prisoner's claim that he had him transferred to another facility in
retaliation for his complaint about the officer to his supervisors concerning
the officer's alleged refusal to authorize the payment of funds from the
prisoner's account to pay his lawyer for work in connection with his criminal
appeal. If true, this would be violative of his First Amendment right of access
to the courts. Siggers-El v. Barlow, No. 03-2291, 412 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2005).
[2005 JB Nov]
Mere fact that a prisoner obtained the reversal
of a prior disciplinary sanction imposed on him by a hearing officer was
insufficient, standing alone, to show that the hearing officer acted for
retaliatory purposes in imposing discipline on him again four months later,
particularly when the officer acquitted him of two of the three charges against
him, and the prisoner himself admitted he was guilty of the third charge.
Mitchell v. Senkowski, #04-1792, 158 Fed. Appx. 346 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Correctional officer's alleged conduct of
repeatedly groping or caressing a prisoner's chest, genitals and buttocks
during a pat search, if true, constituted a sexual assault which would violate
the Eighth Amendment, so that he was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Further, the officer's alleged retaliation against the prisoner for complaining
by planting evidence against him and filing a misbehavior report against him,
if true, would violate the prisoner's First Amendment rights. Rodriguez v.
McClenning, No. 03 Civ. 5269, 399 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
Prisoner failed to show that he was reassigned
from a boiler-room job to a "hoe" squad and forced to work in dirty
clothes and in cold weather in retaliation for his filing of grievances and
complaints. The evidence showed, the court ruled, that he was actually reassigned
for legitimate reasons, including the prisoner's connections to white
supremacist groups and the risk of escape posed by his prior escape from
another facility. Breshears v. Brown, No. 04-41749 150 Fed. Appx. 323 (5th Cir.
2005).
Correctional officer was properly denied summary
judgment on prisoner's claim that he had him transferred to another facility in
retaliation for his complaint about the officer to his supervisors concerning
the officer's alleged refusal to authorize the payment of funds from the
prisoner's account to pay his lawyer for work in connection with his criminal
appeal. If true, this would be violative of his First Amendment right of access
to the courts. Siggers-El v. Barlow, No. 03-2291, 412 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2005).
[2005 JB Nov]
Gang members had no First Amendment right to
belong to gangs, so their transfer to the "highest security" prison
in Illinois, even if in "retaliation" for gang activity, was not
improper. Federal appeals court reinstates, however, claims concerning whether
adequate due process was provided for prisoners transferred there, and whether
certain prisoners were transferred in retaliation for having pursued grievances
and/or litigation concerning their conditions of confinement. Westefer v.
Snyder, No. 03-3318, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19217 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
Prisoner's claim for alleged mental anguish and
emotional distress arising out of a dispute with correctional officials over
the alleged retaliatory withholding of two pornographic magazines by the prison
mail personnel could not be pursued, in the absence of physical injury under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). He claimed that the
retaliation occurred because he filed a previously lawsuit against prison
employees. Geiger v. Jowers, No. 04-10299, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005).
Prisoner's question to work supervisor concerning
pay for prisoners laid off from prison sewing shop was not speech on a matter
of public concern for which he had First Amendment protection against
retaliatory action. McElroy v. Lopac, No. 03-3257, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 5611
(7th Cir.). [2005 JB Jun]
A prisoner's First Amendment claims are not
excluded from the requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1997e(e) prohibiting claims for mental or emotional injury in the absence
of a showing of physical injury. That rule, however, while barring the
plaintiff's claims for emotion or mental injury from alleged retaliation in
violation of his First Amendment rights did not bar claims for nominal,
compensatory, and punitive damages for the violation of his rights. Meade v.
Plummer, No. 99-CV-10011, 344 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Iowa prisoner's claim that a correctional officer
wrote a false misconduct report concerning his behavior in retaliation for his
announced intention to file a grievance against him, and did so for the purpose
of preventing the processing of the grievance, stated a claim for violation of
First Amendment rights, so that dismissal of the claim was not warranted under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B). Hartsfield v. Department of Corrections, No.
04-1311, 107 Fed. Appx. 695 (8th Cir. 2004).
Prison law librarian's alleged refusal to allow a
prisoner to bind, in a timely manner, his petition for writ of certiorari, if
true, would violate his First Amendment right of access to the courts. Genuine
issues of material fact as to the librarian's motivation in denying the
prisoner timely access to the binder barred summary judgment on the prisoner's
retaliation claim. Phillips v. Hust, No. 01-1252, 338 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Ore.
2004). [N/R]
Factual issues existed as to whether prison
officials who transferred prisoner to administrative segregation after a
behavior modification unit program was discontinued were motivated by a desire
to retaliate against him for filing grievances, in violation of his First
Amendment rights. Summary judgment was therefore properly denied to the
defendants in the prisoner's lawsuit. Lodatao v. Ortiz, No. CIV.A. 02-2803, 314
F. Supp. 2d 379 (D.N.J. 2004).
Prisoner's allegations that officers confiscated
and destroyed his property, threatened to transfer him, and assaulted him in
retaliation for his filing of grievances were sufficient to state a claim for
violation of his First Amendment rights. Appeals court rejects the "Catch
22" argument that no claim was stated because the prisoner was undeterred
by these actions from continuing to assert his First Amendment rights. Rhodes
v. Robinson, No. 03-15335 380 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Appeals court orders further proceedings on
prisoner's claim that he was falsely charged and disciplined for misconduct in
retaliation for prior grievances and lawsuits against a correctional officer.
Summary judgment for defendant officer was improper without considering another
inmate's affidavit concerning officer's alleged retaliatory intent, and the
issue of proximity in time between prisoner's exercise of his First Amendment
rights and the alleged retaliatory action. Muhammed v. Close, #02-1043, 379
F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Prisoner failed to show that his placement in
administrative segregation after he finished a period of disciplinary
segregation was in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights
in complaining of prison officials' alleged racism. The stated reasons for
placing the prisoner, who had previously been convicted of drug trafficking
activities within the prison, in administrative segregation were within the
scope of established policy. Hall-Bey v. Hanks, No. 02-4050, 93 Fed. Appx. 977
(7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
on prisoner's claim that the confiscation of his word processor and radio,
after he submitted letters critical of the prison for mailing, were retaliatory
for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Confiscation, since it was
carried out under the authority of a prison administrative directive, was not a
random, unauthorized action for which the availability of adequate
post-deprivation state remedies would bar a federal due process claim. Allen v.
Thomas, No. 03-21208, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20953 (5th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Nov]
While prisoner successfully proved that prison
security director improperly put him in segregation in retaliation for filing
"too many" complaints and grievances, in violation of his First
Amendment rights, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he was not entitled
to an award of compensatory damages in the absence of physical injury, but only
$1 in nominal damages. Appeals court also upholds the decision not to award
punitive damages, since the defendant acted out of "frustration,"
rather than with an "evil motive," and upholds application of PLRA
section to limit attorneys' fee award in the case to $1.50. Royal v. Kautzky,
No. 02-3446, 375 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Oct]
Prison guard was not entitled to qualified
immunity on the claim that he filed a false misconduct ticket against a
prisoner in retaliation for his "jailhouse lawyering" activity. Law
prohibiting such retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights was clearly
established. Scott v. Churchill, No. 03-2427, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15269 (6th
Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Appeals court orders further proceedings on
prisoner's claim that he was falsely charged and disciplined for misconduct in
retaliation for prior grievances and lawsuits against a correctional officer.
Summary judgment for defendant officer was improper without considering another
inmate's affidavit concerning officer's alleged retaliatory intent, and the
issue of proximity in time between prisoner's exercise of his First Amendment
rights and the alleged retaliatory action. Muhammed v. Close, #02-1043, 379
F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Dec]
Prisoner in psychiatric housing unit asserted a
valid claim for unlawful retaliation against him for reporting that a
correctional officer exposed his penis to him and made vulgar remarks, and then
falsely accused him of misconduct after he refused to refrain from reporting
the incident. Austin v. Terhune, #02-16546, 367 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2004).
[2004 JB Aug]
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity from excessive force claim by previously brain-damaged
pre-trial detainee who they allegedly caused severe facial and head injuries in
the course of a struggle to apply restraints to his wrists after he refused to
get on the water-covered floor of his cell. Detainee's behavior of banging on
cell walls and doors and tossing toilet water around his cell to
"protest" not being allowed out of his cell, however, was not
"protected speech," so that detainee's First Amendment retaliation
claim was dismissed. Simms v. Hardesty, 303 F. Supp. 2d 656 (D.Md. 2003).
Texas prisoners, members of the Church of Christ,
did not show that Texas correctional officials violated their rights to
religious freedom by providing a chaplain who they had doctrinal differences
with. Prisoner who allegedly caused a disturbance and walkout by 50 prisoners at
services by reading a statement denouncing the chaplain did not show that he
was unlawfully transferred in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment
rights. Freeman v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, #03-10443, 2004 U.S.
App. 8998 (5th Cir). [2004 JB Jun]
Prisoner's claim that he was charged with a
disciplinary violation in retaliation for leading a religious group meeting
which discussed whether the group should file a grievance against a prison
employee adequately stated a claim for unlawful retaliation. Samuels v.
Hammond, #03-30589, 78 Fed. Appx. 314 (5th Cir. 2003).
Pennsylvania prisoner was not entitled to a
judicial order requiring the state Board of Probation and Parole to grant him
parole. Despite his claim that a sentencing judge and prosecutor sent
unfavorable recommendations to the Board in retaliation for his filing of a
successful federal habeas petition, the Board followed established procedures
in denying parole, and the denial was justified by the reasons given. Burkett
v. Frank, 841 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwth. 2004).
Federal appeals court reinstates prisoner's claim
that he was determined to be a prison gang member in retaliation for his
jailhouse lawyering activity in pursuing grievances on behalf of himself and
other inmates, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Evidence used had
been found insufficient during two prior investigations of suspected gang
affiliation. Bruce v. Ylst, #01-17527, 351 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB
Mar]
Prisoner in psychiatric housing unit asserted a
valid claim for unlawful retaliation against him for reporting that a
correctional officer exposed his penis to him and made vulgar remarks, and then
falsely accused him of misconduct after he refused to refrain from reporting the
incident. Austin v. Terhune, #02-16546, 367 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB
Aug]
Prison guard was not entitled to qualified
immunity on the claim that he filed a false misconduct ticket against a
prisoner in retaliation for his "jailhouse lawyering" activity. Law
prohibiting such retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights was clearly
established. Scott v. Churchill, No. 03-2427, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15269 (6th
Cir.). [2004 JB Sep]
Wisconsin prisoner failed to show that transfer
to another facility was a violation of his First Amendment rights and
retaliatory for his participation in prior lawsuits against prison employees,
as there was no evidence that those who authorized the transfer knew of these
prior lawsuits. Johnson v. Kingston, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (W.D. Wis. 2003).
Prisoner could not assert a claim for denial of
access to the courts based on refusal to allow him to visit the law library, in
the absence of a showing of actual injury in a pending case. He could still
pursue, however, his claim that he was denied access to legal materials in
retaliation for filing grievances, since he had alleged a "chronology of
events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred." Westbrook v.
Treon, #03-10004, 78 Fed. Appx. 970 (5th Cir. 2003).
Wisconsin prisoner failed to show that transfer
to another facility was a violation of his First Amendment rights and
retaliatory for his participation in prior lawsuits against prison employees,
as there was no evidence that those who authorized the transfer knew of these
prior lawsuits. Johnson v. Kingston, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (W.D. Wis. 2003).
Prisoner's allegations that correctional
officials denied him access to the law library, filed false disciplinary
charges against him, and arranged to transfer him in retaliation for his
actions in filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against them adequately stated
a claim for denial of access to the courts. Federal appeals court notes that
Defendant officials did not respond to these claims, and that the prisoner
claimed to have been denied access even to the applicable rules on summary
judgment before his other claims were rejected on the Defendants' summary
judgment motion. Goodman v. Smith, No. 02-6313, 58 Fed. Appx. 36 (4th Cir.
2003). [2003 JB Jul]
Prisoner had no constitutional right of access to
probate court which was violated by prison officials' alleged actions in not
allowing him to retrieve legal papers from his locker before he was transported
to the court for personal business there. His protected constitutional right of
access to the courts only extended to direct appeals or habeas corpus
applications in criminal cases and civil rights claims. Plaintiff prisoner also
failed to show that a warden's decision to transfer him was retaliatory for his
letter of complaint over the incident, rather than, as asserted, based on
concern for his safety after he was assaulted by other prisoners. Lewis v.
Randle, No. 02-4297, 66 Fed. Appx. 560 (6th Cir. 2003).
Trial court improperly granted defendant
correctional officials' motion for summary judgment on prisoner's claim that
they retaliated against him for having successfully settled a prior lawsuit
against correctional officers by transferring him to a maximum security
facility and imposing discipline upon him. There was a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether such retaliation was a "substantial
factor" in the actions taken. Bennett v. Goord, No. 01-0184, 343 F.3d 133
(2nd Cir. 2003).
Correctional officers accused of retaliation
against prisoner for supporting another inmate's excessive force claim by
pursuing disciplinary charges against prisoner would not be liable for
violation of his First Amendment rights if they could demonstrate "dual
motivation," showing that even without their "improper"
motivation, the prisoner would have been subjected to the same actions. Scott
v. Coughlin, #99-0365, 344 F.3d 282 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
Prisoner could pursue claims against some nurses
for alleged inadequate medical care and retaliation against him for filing of
an earlier lawsuit, but not against one nurse against whom he had failed to
exhaust available administrative remedies concerning retaliation claim. The
prisoner's grievance only had to allege misconduct by the nurses and did not
need to plead all the elements of a particular legal theory. Burton v. Jones,
No. 01-1078, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Oct]
Prison officials failed to meet their burden of
showing that they would have imposed the same punishment on a prisoner
regardless of their alleged retaliation against him for exercising his
constitutionally protected right to use the prison grievance system to complain
about alleged staff racism. Gayle v. Gonyea, No. 01-0218, 313 F.3d 677 (2nd
Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
Prisoner's allegations that correctional
officials denied him access to the law library, filed false disciplinary
charges against him, and arranged to transfer him in retaliation for his
actions in filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against them adequately stated
a claim for denial of access to the courts. Federal appeals court notes that
Defendant officials did not respond to these claims, and that the prisoner
claimed to have been denied access even to the applicable rules on summary
judgment before his other claims were rejected on the Defendants' summary
judgment motion. Goodman v. Smith, No. 02-6313, 58 Fed. Appx. 36 (4th Cir.
2003). [2003 JB Jul]
Prisoner provided no evidentiary support for his
claim that the misbehavior report concerning his "disruptively loud"
telephone conversation and his refusal to obey orders to desist was
"fabricated" in retaliation for prior conflicts with a correctional
officer. Discipline of prisoner on the basis of misbehavior report is upheld. Crawford
v. Girdich, 752 N.Y.S.2d 919 (A.D. 2003).
Inmate sufficiently pleaded facts to support his
claim that officials retaliated against him by imposing disciplinary sanctions
for his "jailhouse lawyering" activities when defendants did not
assert whether the prisoner had actually committed prison rule violations which
would defeat the retaliation claim. Williams v. Manternach, 192 F. Supp. 2d 980
(N.D. Iowa 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory
transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence of
events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving
motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty interest
in continued participation in work release program which could not be ended
without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
[2003 JB Oct]
Prisoner could state a claim for retaliatory
transfer for having filed a grievance against an officer based on a sequence of
events from which a retaliatory motive could be inferred, without proving
motivation in the complaint. Illinois prisoner had a protected liberty interest
in continued participation in work release program which could not be ended
without due process. Segreti v. Gillen, 259 F. Supp. 2d 733 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
[2003 JB Oct]
A prison librarian's alleged filing of an
"erroneous" evaluation of a prisoner's performance in his work
assignment after the prisoner filed a grievance over an earlier evaluation was
not unlawful retaliation in violation of the prisoner's First Amendment rights.
The librarian had submitted other negative evaluations of the prisoner's work
performance before he ever filed a grievance. Keenan v. Daniel, #02-2059, 63
Fed. Appx. 180 (6th Cir. 2003).
A prison librarian's alleged filing of an
"erroneous" evaluation of a prisoner's performance in his work
assignment after the prisoner filed a grievance over an earlier evaluation was
not unlawful retaliation in violation of the prisoner's First Amendment rights.
The librarian had submitted other negative evaluations of the prisoner's work
performance before he ever filed a grievance. Keenan v. Daniel, #02-2059, 63
Fed. Appx. 180 (6th Cir. 2003).
Trial court improperly granted defendant correctional
officials' motion for summary judgment on prisoner's claim that they retaliated
against him for having successfully settled a prior lawsuit against
correctional officers by transferring him to a maximum security facility and
imposing discipline upon him. There was a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether such retaliation was a "substantial factor" in the actions
taken. Bennett v. Goord, No. 01-0184, 343 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2003).
State prisoner could pursue First Amendment claim
asserting that he was subjected to a transfer to a facility farther from his
home in retaliation for writing letters to newspapers which were critical of
the prison system. State sovereign immunity under Pennsylvania law was no
defense to his federal civil rights lawsuit. Owens v. Shannon, 808 A.2d 607
(Pa. Cmwlth 2002).
Prisoner could pursue his claim that correctional
officials retaliated against him for his participation in African/African
American Cultural Coalition and his pursuit of grievances and lawsuits, even if
he had no independent constitutional right relating to the complained of
specific deprivations. Prisoner failed, however, to show that defendants'
motives were retaliatory or used excessive force against him. Cunningham v.
O'Leary, #00-3729, 40 Fed. Appx. 232 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Prisoner stated a claim for unlawful retaliation
in violation of his First Amendment rights by asserting that he was told that
he was removed from the prison laundry because he wrote to his congressional
representative. He also stated a possible equal protection claim by asserting
that he had received more severe discipline for a sexual incident because of
his sexual orientation. Federal appeals court orders further proceedings as to
whether plaintiff prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies on those
claims. Feaster v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 00-0118, 37 Fed. Appx. 15 (2nd
Cir. 2002).
New York prisoner stated a claim for
impermissible retaliation against him for protected First Amendment activity by
alleging that he was disciplined because he circulated a petition requesting an
investigation of a correctional officer's alleged "abusive conduct."
Farid v. Goord, 200 F. Supp. 2d 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
California prisoner's role as chairman of an
Inmate Advisory Council established by state regulations was a First Amendment
protected activity; appeals court overturns summary judgment for officers
accused of issuing false administrative warnings against prisoner in retaliation
for his activities. Summary judgment upheld, however, for officers who filed
disciplinary charges against prisoner and hearing officer who convicted
prisoner, even though particular disciplinary finding was subsequently
overturned by the warden. McQuillion v. McKenzie, #00-15505, 35 Fed. Appx. 547
(9th Cir. 2002).[2002 JB Sep]
Federal prisoner stated a possible claim against
the Bureau of Prisons for violation of federal Privacy Act based on a claim
that he was transferred and reclassified as a "special offender"
based on false accusations of misconduct against him in alleged retaliation for
his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons,
#00-5424, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
Prison's maintenance of different policies on
conditions of confinement of death row prisoners and prisoners serving
non-capital sentences did not constitute First Amendment retaliation against
death row prisoners where the differing policies and treatment did not depend on
whether the prisoner facing death had appealed their sentence. Further, while
this difference in treatment may have made life "more unpleasant" for
those on death row, the conditions were not so different from those faced by
other inmates as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment or serve as a
deterrent against filing law suits. Apanovitch v. Wilkinson, #01-3558, 32 Fed.
Appx. 704 (6th Cir. 2002).
299:172 Prisoner who lost good-time credits when
he tested positive for drug use could not pursue claim that officer asked him
to take the test in retaliation for filing a grievance against her unless the
disciplinary determination was first set aside; prisoner could, however, pursue
claims of retaliation concerning the filing of allegedly false disciplinary
complaints against him or his transfer in alleged retaliation for questioning
an officer's authority to deny him legal assistance. Farver v. Schwartz, No.
00-3729EA, 255 F.3d 473 (8th Cir. 2001)
298:149 Officer was not entitled to qualified
immunity on prisoner's claim that he retaliated against him for complaining
about his threats to harm him by telling gun tower to shoot prisoner if he
moved and then subjected prisoner to discipline for not returning to his cell.
Johnson v. Freeburn, 144 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
297:135 Prisoner was required to exhaust
administrative remedies before proceeding with lawsuit challenging prison drug
testing policies, which constituted a claim about "prison
conditions," but he was not required to do so on claims that prison
officials took retaliatory disciplinary actions against him individually. Giano
v. Goord, #98-2619, 250 F.3d 146 (2nd Cir. 2001).
295:100 Correctional officers' alleged statements
labeling a prisoner a "rat" and an "informant," based on
his complaints that an officer was allegedly seeking to incite another prisoner
to attack him in retaliation for successfully appealing a disciplinary order
did not suffice to constitute unconstitutional retaliation for his exercise of
his First Amendment rights. Dawes v. Walker, No. 99-252, 239 F.3d 489 (2nd Cir.
2001).
294:88 Prisoner did not need to exhaust
administrative remedies before pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit for
particular, individualized instance of alleged retaliation by correctional
officer; inmate claimed officer filed disciplinary charges against him because
of his complaints to prison authorities about the officer's alleged misconduct.
Lawrence v. Goord, No. 99-0202, 238 F.3d 182 (2nd Cir. 2001).
293:75 Officer was protected by qualified
immunity from liability for bringing disciplinary proceeding against a Moslem
inmate in retaliation for his wearing "kufi" religious headgear,
since a reasonable officer could have concluded that contraband could be concealed
under the kufi. Nicholas v. Tucker, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2323 (S.D.N.Y.).
293:72 N.Y. prisoner awarded $25,000 in
compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages against correctional
officer who allegedly found him guilty of a disciplinary infraction in
retaliation for his participation in an inmate grievance resolution committee.
Maurer v. Patterson, 197 F.R.D. 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
290:27 There was probable cause for a warrant to
search prisoner's jail cell based on his alleged statements to a cellmate
regarding plans to take retaliatory reprisals against his inlaws; defendant
officials were entitled to qualified immunity on alleged seizure and reading of
a letter from prisoner to attorney. Barstow v. Kennebec County Jail, 115 F.
Supp. 2d 3 (D. Me. 2000).
289:14 Prisoner could pursue federal civil rights
lawsuit over loss of his prison job which allegedly resulted from officers
pursuing false disciplinary charges against him after he filed a complaint
against an officer; despite the lack of a property or liberty interest in his
job assignment, prisoner's equal protection (racial discrimination) and
retaliation claims were not barred. DeWalt v. Carter, No. 98-2415, 224 F.3d 607
(7th Cir. 2000).
282:83 Prisoner's conduct in pursuing frivolous
legal claims was not protected conduct for which he could pursue retaliation
claim in the absence of retaliatory conduct which "shocked the
conscience"; prisoner could, however, pursue claim that he was retaliated
against for assisting another prisoner in asserting his complaints if that
assistance was necessary to enable other prisoner to do so. Herron v. Harrison,
No. 98-5726, 203 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2000).
277:11 Correctional officer violated prisoner's
First Amendment rights by placing him in administrative segregation for three
days in retaliation for filing grievances against him; appeals court rules that
nominal damage award of $1 was inadequate, and that trial court should increase
this and also consider awarding punitive damages against officer. Trobaugh v.
Hall, #98-4031, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).
287:165 Prisoner's alleged "stage
fright," making it difficult for him to produce a urine sample for drug
testing while being observed, was not a disability for purposes of the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA); court also finds that discipline of
prisoner for various misconduct charges was not retaliatory. Oyague v. State of
New York, #98 Civ. 6721 (TPG), 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12426 (S.D.N.Y.)
Prisoner stated a claim for retaliation by
asserting that library supervisor denied him any access to the library after he
filed a grievance against her for prior denial of access. Zimmerman v. Tribble,
No. 98-2163, 226 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2000).
283:108 Native American prisoner stated a claim
for retaliatory transfer; lawsuit claimed that he was transferred to another
facility because of his practice of his Native American religion and his free
speech activities in complaining about restrictions on religious practice in
the prison. Rouse v. Benson, #98-2707, 193 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 1999).
281:67 Prisoner is awarded $4,221.40 against two
officers on his claim that they imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, removed
him from his job in the mess hall, and transferred him to another facility in
retaliation for his complaints about prisoner work schedules which arguably
violated state law limiting work hours. Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F. Supp. 2d 381
(N.D.N.Y. 1999).
277:11 Correctional officer violated prisoner's
First Amendment rights by placing him in administrative segregation for three
days in retaliation for filing grievances against him; appeals court rules that
nominal damage award of $1 was inadequate, and that trial court should increase
this and also consider awarding punitive damages against officer. Trobaugh v.
Hall, #98-4031, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999).
274:158 Evidence showed that prisoner was not
transferred in retaliation for filing a grievance, but rather because he was,
by his own statement, medically incapable of performing his jail food service
work assignment. Farver v. Vilches, #98-1865, 158 F.3d 978 (8th Cir. 1998).
Trial court should have considered whether
correctional officers would have taken the same actions against prisoner in the
absence of a retaliatory motive when considering prisoner's First Amendment
claim. Davidson v. Chestnut, No. 98-2853(L), 193 F.3d 144 (2nd Cir. 1999).
Prisoner who assisted litigating inmate in filing
a lawsuit was engaged in "protected conduct" for purposes of a retaliation
claim. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, No. 95-1837, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999).
266:28 Transfer of prisoner to another facility
in retaliation for his correspondence with newspaper reporter, participation in
pre-authorized newspaper interview, and activities as president of authorized
advocacy group for lifer prisoners was improper; prisoner entitled to damages.
Castle v. Clymer, 15 F.Supp.2d 640 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
267:37 Prison chaplain's conversations with
prison official outside his chain of command concerning decision to have
someone else, rather than him, tutor an illiterate prisoner was not protected
First Amendment speech. Button v. Kibby-Brown, #97-2832, 146 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.
1998).
270:84 Prison employee's demands for a personal
security guard to protect him did not involve a matter of public concern
entitling him to protection, under the First Amendment, from firing in alleged
retaliation for raising the issue. Kohl v. Smythe, 25 F.Supp.2d 1124 (D. Hawaii
1998).
Appeals court upholds jury verdict for
correctional employee in lawsuit by prisoner asserting that law library access
was denied in retaliation for a lawsuit plaintiff helped file against the mail
room supervisor; while prisoner did not waive right to a jury trial, failure to
give him one on his federal civil rights claim was harmless when the result,
based on the evidence, could not have been different. McDonald v. Steward,
#96-40088, 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1998).
257:75 Prisoner who allegedly threatened to kill
correctional officer did not show that officer issued misconduct ticket in
retaliation for grievance prisoner had filed against officer several days
before regarding another incident. McLaurin v. Cole, 115 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.
1997). 258:88 Prisoner could not pursue claim for damages over alleged defects
in disciplinary proceeding when an award in his favor would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and it had not previously been
set aside. Lusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 1997). » Editor's Note: For
another recent decision holding that a claim that the hearing officer was
biased (as well as other procedural defects in a prisoner's disciplinary
proceeding) was not actionable in a money damages claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983, see Burnell v. Coughlin, 975 F.Supp. 473 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
257:75 Prisoner who allegedly threatened to kill
correctional officer did not show that officer issued misconduct ticket in
retaliation for grievance prisoner had filed against officer several days before
regarding another incident. McLaurin v. Cole, 115 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1997).
258:88 Prisoner could not pursue claim for damages over alleged defects in
disciplinary proceeding when an award in his favor would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and it had not previously been set
aside. Lusz v. Scott, 126 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 1997).
248:122 Prisoner who claimed he was transferred
to another facility and denied placement on a job waiting list after
complaining of alleged environmental violations by Federal Prison Industries
was not an "employee" entitled to protection against retaliation
under "whistleblowing" provisions of federal environmental statutes.
Coupar v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 105 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997).
246:94 Federal appeals court upholds $2,250
damage award against correctional officials for retaliatory transfer and
discipline of inmate who had prepared and filed a lawsuit over prison
overcrowding. Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 1996).
239:174 Inmate awarded $2,163.67 in damages and
$29,039 in attorneys' fees on claim that he was transferred to another, higher
security, facility in retaliation for cooperating with Internal Affairs
investigation of correctional officer. Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir.
1995).
231:46 Update: Federal appeals court overturns
injunction against transfer and double celling of former "Black Panther
Party" leader; trial court erred in determining that prison officials'
actions were in retaliation for his media interviews when transfer decision was
made prior to date television interview took place, and transfer was justified
by prisoner's own prior requests to be closer to his family. Pratt v. Rowland,
65 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995).
230:20 Prohibiting prisoner from corresponding
with relatives in Spanish and Apache languages did not violate his
constitutional rights; English-only rule was based on legitimate security
concerns and hiring interpreters to translate mail would have been unduly
burdensome; prison officials were, however, liable for retaliatory transfer of
prisoner for filing grievances and lawsuits concerning the policy. Sisneros v.
Nix, 884 F.Supp. 1313 (S.D. Iowa 1995).219:38 Prohibiting a prisoner enrolled
in a therapeutic sexual offender treatment program from retaining sexually
explicit fiction which he wrote did not violate his First Amendment rights, but
rather was based on a legitimate goal of rehabilitation. Frink v. Arnold, 842
F.Supp. 1184 (S.D. Iowa 1994).
221:67 Inmate's lawsuit did not need to show
anything more than officer's alleged filing of false disciplinary charges
against him in retaliation for his grievance against officer to state claim for
officer's violation of his First Amendment right of petition; fact that inmate was
not convicted of or punished for disciplinary charge did not alter result.
Dixon v. Brown, 38 F.3d 379 (8th Cir. 1994).
220:62 Federal court enjoins transfer of former
"Black Panther Party" leader and placing him in double, instead of
single cell; court finds probable retaliatory motive when transfer took place
right after prisoner agreed to media interview and when prisoner's allegedly
medical need for single cell had previously been accommodated. Pratt v.
Rowland, 856 F.Supp. 565 (N.D. Cal. 1994).
Prisoner's complaint adequately stated claim for
retaliation against him for filing prior grievances. Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d
1395 (7th Cir. 1994).
Prisoner's rights were violated when hearing
officer refused inmate's request that prison employee be called as a witness in
his disciplinary hearing in support of his defense that charges were filed
against him as a retaliatory measure. Adams v. Coughlin, 609 N.Y.S.2d 461 (A.D.
1994).
Prisoner's claim that correctional employees
threatened him with retaliation for using prison grievance procedures was a
sufficient injury to constitute an alleged First Amendment violation. Burgess
v. Moore, 39 F.3d 216 (8th Cir. 1994).
Federal prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity in suit inmate brought claiming that his First Amendment
rights were violated and that he was retaliated against by being placed in
administrative detention after he told the press he had allegedly sold
marijuana to a Vice Presidential candidate. Kimberlin v. Quinlan, 6 F.3d 789
(D.C. Cir. 1993).
Federal marshals did not violate any clearly
established rights that inmate had when they contracted to place a pretrial
detainee in local jails and transported him there; various conditions in local
jails did not constitute unconstitutional deprivation of human needs. Jordan v.
Doe, 38 F.3d 1559 (11th Cir. 1994). Inmate alleging retaliatory transfer must
show that transfer would not have taken place "but for" the
impermissible retaliatory motive. Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner who was "jailhouse lawyer"
could amend complaint to state constitutional claim of denial of access to
courts based on refusal of prison officials to transfer him out of segregation
at end of 30-day period in alleged retaliation for his assistance to other
prisoners, including claim that there were, at his facility no reasonable
alternatives to his assistance which ensured other inmates' access to courts.
Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1993).
Inmate alleging retaliatory transfer must show
that transfer would not have taken place "but for" the permissible
retaliatory motive. Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner's claim that correctional officials
retaliated against him for his writ-writing activities should not have been
dismissed as frivolous. Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1993).
Transfer of prisoner was not in retaliation for
his exercise of constitutional rights, but because he ignored established
prison rules concerning the use of inmate funds and the sending of
"group" or "committee" correspondence. Brookins v. Kolb,
990 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1993).
Alleged transfer of prisoner in retaliation for
his activities as chairman of "Afrikan Cultural Society" stated claim
for First Amendment violation. Frazier v. DuBois, 922 F.2d 560 (10th Cir.
1991).
Federal appeals court holds that prisoner cannot
sue for retaliatory discipline when the alleged retaliation arose from
discipline "imparted for acts that a prisoner was not entitled to
perform." Orebaugh v. Caspari, 910 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1990).
Prisoner can sue for retaliatory discipline for
filing grievances even if he had no constitutional right to a grievance
procedure. Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1989).
Inmate's lawsuit stated claim for
"retaliatory transfer" for prior lawsuits. Murphy v. Lane, 833 F.2d
106 (7th Cir. 1987).
Inmates lost their library jobs because of
disciplinary tickets, not retaliation. Dupont v. Saunders, 800 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.
1986).
No Section 1983 action against sheriff or
television station for allegedly retaliating against plaintiff for filing
lawsuit. Tyler v. Harper, 670 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. App. 1984
Transfer of inmate not done for retaliatory
reasons; no right to full-time job and full-time education. Lane v. Reid, 575
F.Supp. 37 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
Appellate Court holds prisoner's complaint
alleging officials conspired to retaliate against his civil rights suits stated
valid complaint; remands case to district court. Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d
371 (3rd Cir. 1981).
Inmates not transferred in retaliation for
exercising First Amendment rights; Massachusetts statute entitles inmates to
educational program. Association for Reduction of Violence v. Hall, 558 F.Supp.
661 (D. Mass. 1983).
Transfer of inmate in retaliation for his
testimony at second inmate's disciplinary hearing prohibited. Lamb v. Hutto,
467 F.Supp. 562 (E.D. Va. 1979).
Inmate complaint alleging that transfer and
segregation were imposed solely in retaliation for filing other suits should
not have been dismissed. Hohman v. Hogan, 597 F.2d 490 (2nd Cir. 1979).
See also: Access to Legal Information and Courts, First Amendment, Prisoner Discipline and Prisoner Transfers.