holding that temporal proximity is insufficient to establish an improper retaliatory motive where the disciplinary report is substantiated, and therefore an inmate cannot defeat summary judgment simply by pointing to an earlier grievance
How later courts described this case
- holding that temporal proximity is insufficient to establish an improper retaliatory motive where the disciplinary report is substantiated, and therefore an inmate cannot defeat summary judgment simply by pointing to an earlier grievance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 17, 2006
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20260
Summary Calendar
_______________________
JACK W. REEVES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CYNTHIA ANN WOOD, Corrections Officer,
in her individual capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Docket No. H-04-1477
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Texas prisoner Jack W. Reeves filed a complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cynthia Wood, a property officer, for an
allegedly false and retaliatory disciplinary conviction. The
district court granted Wood’s motion for summary judgment. Because
Reeves can prove neither a retaliatory motive nor causation, we
AFFIRM.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
This court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo.
Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). Summary
judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). To establish a claim of
retaliation, a prisoner must show: “(1) a specific constitutional
right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner
for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse
act, and (4) causation.” McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231
(5th Cir. 1998).
Reeves alleges that Wood filed a disciplinary charge that
resulted in sanctions and the loss of his typewriter in retaliation
for his filing of a grievance against Wood for failing to put a
property slip in his file for a Smith-Corona typewriter. Prisoners
are required to have property slips for items such as typewriters.
If found in possession of such an item without a slip, the inmate
can face disciplinary action or loss of the item. To establish
causation, however, Reeves must show that “but for the retaliatory
motive the complained of incident . . . would not have occurred.”
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). “Mere
conclusionary allegations of retaliation will not withstand a
summary judgment challenge.” Id. Under prison regulations,
prisoners are allowed only one typewriter. Because Reeves’s
2
property slip for the seized Smith-Corona typewriter, regardless of
its authenticity, was superseded by a later property slip for
another typewriter, he cannot show a retaliatory motive.
Reeves asserts that the allegations in the disciplinary
action are false; however, he was found guilty of possession of
contraband. Although not conclusive, the existence of a legitimate
prison disciplinary report is “probative and potent summary
judgment evidence.” Id. Here, Reeves cannot show that, absent his
grievance filing, the typewriter would not have been taken away due
to the improper paperwork, particularly given the previous actions
taken in regard to the typewriter.1
The temporal proximity between Reeves’s grievance and the
disciplinary action is in this case insufficient to establish an
improper retaliatory motive. Prison officials must be given wide
deference in the management of inmates, as “[t]he prospect of
endless claims of retaliation . . . would disrupt prison officials
in the discharge of their most basic duties.” Id. When, as here,
the disciplinary report is substantiated, an inmate cannot defeat
summary judgment simply by pointing to an earlier grievance, as
1
The typewriter had been the subject of two prior disciplinary
proceedings, one brought by Wood and another by an officer who was not sued. At
each, Reeves produced a property slip, and the cases were dismissed. The
disciplinary hearings, however, do not establish ownership of property or have
res judicata effect. Although these hearings did not result in sanctions, the
prior actions show prison officials were aware of, and concerned with, Reeves’s
possession of the typewriter. Moreover, the disciplinary action with which
Reeves takes issue in this case initially concerned the authenticity of the
property slip, not its existence.
3
inmates must not be able to insulate themselves from disciplinary
action by filing grievances against prison officials. See id.
Reeves also objects to the district court’s failure to
rule on his challenges to Woods’s evidence and the court’s stay of
discovery against him. These complaints are groundless. Wood
offered as authenticated business records the prison disciplinary
file on these matters (Exhibit A), and the court was entitled to
rely on it for summary judgment purposes. Further, the discovery
stay was authorized pending determination related to qualified
immunity.
Because Reeves can neither show an adverse act caused by
a retaliatory motive or intent, nor establish the necessary
causation, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Wood
is AFFIRMED.
4