×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Retaliation Claims Must Be Based On Constitutional Rights
Louisiana State Prisoner Darryl Crockett filed a complaint alleging
improper censorship of outgoing mail and retaliation which was dismissed by
the district court. Crockett appealed contending that his complaint was
erroneously dismissed because he alleged facts in support of a direct
retaliation and also a chronology of events that could be considered
retaliation for writing a complaint letter to an administrator at a
different prison.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the retaliation claim would fail
unless Crockett identifies a constitutional right, the exercise of which
resulted in retaliation. The court found that with the censorship of
outgoing mail, Crockett alleged a constitutional right and a chronology of
events from which he suffered retaliation for writing the letter and
reversed the dismissal.
Crockett contends that the district court should have given him the
opportunity to amend before dismissing his First Amendment claim. His
claims were dismissed as frivolous and the court was thus not required to
provide the opportunity to amend. Crockett did amend his claim once and
filed objections to the magistrate judge's report. Crockett also contends
that the district court erred in dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims for
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and urges an exception based
on McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S. Ct 1081, 117 L. Ed. 2d 291
(1992) . These claims were rejected. See: Crockett v. Wackenhut, 79
Fed.Appx. 732 (5th Cir. 2003) .
improper censorship of outgoing mail and retaliation which was dismissed by
the district court. Crockett appealed contending that his complaint was
erroneously dismissed because he alleged facts in support of a direct
retaliation and also a chronology of events that could be considered
retaliation for writing a complaint letter to an administrator at a
different prison.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the retaliation claim would fail
unless Crockett identifies a constitutional right, the exercise of which
resulted in retaliation. The court found that with the censorship of
outgoing mail, Crockett alleged a constitutional right and a chronology of
events from which he suffered retaliation for writing the letter and
reversed the dismissal.
Crockett contends that the district court should have given him the
opportunity to amend before dismissing his First Amendment claim. His
claims were dismissed as frivolous and the court was thus not required to
provide the opportunity to amend. Crockett did amend his claim once and
filed objections to the magistrate judge's report. Crockett also contends
that the district court erred in dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims for
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and urges an exception based
on McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S. Ct 1081, 117 L. Ed. 2d 291
(1992) . These claims were rejected. See: Crockett v. Wackenhut, 79
Fed.Appx. 732 (5th Cir. 2003) .
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Crockett v. Wackenhut
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 79 Fed.Appx. 732 (5th Cir. 2003) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
DARRYL A. CROCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL CORP.; O. KENT ANDREWS; MARK ESTES; JOSEPH EVANS, JR.; WALTER GARNETT; DANIEL GRANGER; WILLIAM MARTIN; DOE LINSEY; DOE MANUAL; RICHARD WACKENHUT; CARLENE VIDRINE; GORDON WEBB; DOE SIMMONS; JOHN ONELLION; DOE MORGAN; DOE WHITTINGTON, Defendant-Appellees.
No. 03-30329 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
79 Fed. Appx. 732; 2003 U.S. App.
November 6, 2003, Filed
.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (02-CV-1446).
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
JUDGES: Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: [*733] PER CURIAM: *
* 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.
Darryl A. Crockett, Louisiana inmate # 97474, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action.
For his retaliation claim, Crockett contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because he alleged facts in support of a direct-retaliation theory and a chronology of events from which it could reasonably be inferred that retaliation occurred because he had written a complaint letter to an administrator at a different correctional [**2] facility. Crockett's retaliation claim fails unless he identifies a constitutional right, the exercise of which resulted in retaliation. See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998).
As Crockett concedes, he did not have a constitutional right to complain. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1045-46 (5th Cir. 1986). Crockett maintains, however, that prison officials censored his outgoing mail. "Prison officials may not censor inmate correspondence simply to eliminate unflattering or unwelcome opinions or factually inaccurate statements." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413, 40 L. Ed. 2d 224, 94 S. Ct. 1800 (1974), overruled in part, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 104 L. Ed. 2d 459, 109 S. Ct. 1874 (1989). Taking as true (as we are required to do) Crockett's allegation that prison officials censored his mail, Crockett has alleged a constitutional right and a chronology of events from which it can reasonably be inferred that he was subject to retaliation through disciplinary proceedings, as well as being directly disciplined for writing the letter. See [**3] Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Crockett also contends that, before dismissing his First Amendment claim, the district court should have given him the opportunity to amend. To the extent that his claims were dismissed as frivolous, the district court was not required to provide Crockett an opportunity to amend. See Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12 (5th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds, Arvie v. Broussard, 42 F.3d 249, 251 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Crockett did amend his complaint once; and he had the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and did so.
Finally, Crockett contends that the district court erred in dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies because it will take over three years to do so. Crockett urges application of the exception found in McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 117 L. Ed. 2d 291, 112 S. Ct. 1081 (1992), as cited in Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776-77 (5th Cir. 2000), [**4] to excuse him from his Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) duty to exhaust. Edwards involved an alien awaiting deportation, a situation to which the PLRA does not apply; and we have declined to apply McCarthy's exception to the exhaustion requirement for prisoners' claims under the PLRA. See Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2002).
That part of the judgment dismissing with prejudice Crockett's retaliation claim is VACATED; the remainder of the judgment is AFFIRMED; and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. [*734]
VACATED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; and REMANDED
No. 03-30329 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
79 Fed. Appx. 732; 2003 U.S. App.
November 6, 2003, Filed
.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (02-CV-1446).
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
JUDGES: Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: [*733] PER CURIAM: *
* 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.
Darryl A. Crockett, Louisiana inmate # 97474, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action.
For his retaliation claim, Crockett contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because he alleged facts in support of a direct-retaliation theory and a chronology of events from which it could reasonably be inferred that retaliation occurred because he had written a complaint letter to an administrator at a different correctional [**2] facility. Crockett's retaliation claim fails unless he identifies a constitutional right, the exercise of which resulted in retaliation. See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998).
As Crockett concedes, he did not have a constitutional right to complain. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1045-46 (5th Cir. 1986). Crockett maintains, however, that prison officials censored his outgoing mail. "Prison officials may not censor inmate correspondence simply to eliminate unflattering or unwelcome opinions or factually inaccurate statements." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413, 40 L. Ed. 2d 224, 94 S. Ct. 1800 (1974), overruled in part, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 104 L. Ed. 2d 459, 109 S. Ct. 1874 (1989). Taking as true (as we are required to do) Crockett's allegation that prison officials censored his mail, Crockett has alleged a constitutional right and a chronology of events from which it can reasonably be inferred that he was subject to retaliation through disciplinary proceedings, as well as being directly disciplined for writing the letter. See [**3] Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Crockett also contends that, before dismissing his First Amendment claim, the district court should have given him the opportunity to amend. To the extent that his claims were dismissed as frivolous, the district court was not required to provide Crockett an opportunity to amend. See Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12 (5th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds, Arvie v. Broussard, 42 F.3d 249, 251 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Crockett did amend his complaint once; and he had the opportunity to file objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and did so.
Finally, Crockett contends that the district court erred in dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies because it will take over three years to do so. Crockett urges application of the exception found in McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 117 L. Ed. 2d 291, 112 S. Ct. 1081 (1992), as cited in Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776-77 (5th Cir. 2000), [**4] to excuse him from his Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) duty to exhaust. Edwards involved an alien awaiting deportation, a situation to which the PLRA does not apply; and we have declined to apply McCarthy's exception to the exhaustion requirement for prisoners' claims under the PLRA. See Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2002).
That part of the judgment dismissing with prejudice Crockett's retaliation claim is VACATED; the remainder of the judgment is AFFIRMED; and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. [*734]
VACATED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; and REMANDED