×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Retaliation for Frivolous Litigation Okay
The plaintiff had three prior dismissals, disqualifying him from IFP status. The court directs that he pay the entire filing fee even though his complaint is dismissed as frivolous and IFP status is denied.
An allegation of confinement to segregation or deprivation of minor privileges such as packages or television does not amount to atypical and significant hardship under Sandin.
Prison retaliation claims must be analyzed as substantive due process claims and "the prison official's conduct must transcend all bounds of reasonable conduct and be 'so reprehensible as to "shock the conscience of the court."'" (832) (This is a good example of how courts rhetorically escalate prisoners' burden.) Prisoners must also show an infringement of First Amendment rights. At 833: "The scope of this right [to petition for redress of grievances] is limited to the prisoner's own personal right to file non-frivolous claims with the courts. ... There is no First Amendment right to complain to prison officials, whether informally or by a structured internal prison grievance procedure. It follows that retaliation for voicing complaints, whether verbally and informally or by use of a prison grievance procedure, does not implicate First Amendment rights." And since the plaintiff's prior federal litigation was dismissed as frivolous, retaliation for his litigation would not be unlawful. (This is a good example of how courts purposefully distort the law to prisoners' disadvantage.)
Prisoners do not have a First Amendment right to attempt to intimidate prison employees by threats of lawsuits or disciplinary action.
The court certifies that an appeal would not be in good faith and denies IFP status; if the plaintiff appeals he will have 30 days to pay the entire fee.
The plaintiff, having had four actions dismissed as frivolous, will not be permitted to file further actions without leave of court and must use forms supplied by the court. The Clerk shall not provide more than one complaint and one IFP form a year, and shall not respond to such requests within six months of the most recent request. The plaintiff must certify that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury to file even a paid complaint. See: Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F.Supp. 828 (W.D.Tenn. 1998).
An allegation of confinement to segregation or deprivation of minor privileges such as packages or television does not amount to atypical and significant hardship under Sandin.
Prison retaliation claims must be analyzed as substantive due process claims and "the prison official's conduct must transcend all bounds of reasonable conduct and be 'so reprehensible as to "shock the conscience of the court."'" (832) (This is a good example of how courts rhetorically escalate prisoners' burden.) Prisoners must also show an infringement of First Amendment rights. At 833: "The scope of this right [to petition for redress of grievances] is limited to the prisoner's own personal right to file non-frivolous claims with the courts. ... There is no First Amendment right to complain to prison officials, whether informally or by a structured internal prison grievance procedure. It follows that retaliation for voicing complaints, whether verbally and informally or by use of a prison grievance procedure, does not implicate First Amendment rights." And since the plaintiff's prior federal litigation was dismissed as frivolous, retaliation for his litigation would not be unlawful. (This is a good example of how courts purposefully distort the law to prisoners' disadvantage.)
Prisoners do not have a First Amendment right to attempt to intimidate prison employees by threats of lawsuits or disciplinary action.
The court certifies that an appeal would not be in good faith and denies IFP status; if the plaintiff appeals he will have 30 days to pay the entire fee.
The plaintiff, having had four actions dismissed as frivolous, will not be permitted to file further actions without leave of court and must use forms supplied by the court. The Clerk shall not provide more than one complaint and one IFP form a year, and shall not respond to such requests within six months of the most recent request. The plaintiff must certify that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury to file even a paid complaint. See: Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F.Supp. 828 (W.D.Tenn. 1998).
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
Anderson v. Sundquist
| Year | 1998 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 1 F.Supp. 828 (W.D.Tenn. 1998) |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |