Samuels v. Hammond , 78 F. App'x 314 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 15, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30589
Summary Calendar
CLARENCE SAMUELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FRANK HAMMOND,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-2395
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clarence Samuels, Louisiana inmate # 133005, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We affirm in part and
vacate and remand in part.
Samuels alleged that he led a religious group in a meeting
which discussed whether the group should file a grievance against
a prison employee. He alleged that, after the grievance was filed,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-30589
-2-
he was charged with a disciplinary violation pertaining to the
meeting.
Prison officials may not retaliate against or harass an inmate
for exercising the right of access to the courts, nor may prison
officials retaliate against an inmate for pursuing grievance claims.
See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995); Gibbs v.
King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1046 (5th Cir. 1986). To state a claim of
retaliation, an inmate must allege “(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.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th
Cir. 1999). “The inmate must produce direct evidence of motivation
or, the more probable scenario, allege a chronology of events from
which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” Id. at 325(quotations, internal quotations, and citation omitted).
The chronology of events alleged by Samuels adequately states
a nonfrivolous retaliation claim. See id.; Woods, 60 F.3d at 1164;
Gibbs, 779 F.2d at 1046. Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is VACATED with respect to Samuels’ retaliation claim, and such
claim is REMANDED to the district court for further consideration.
This opinion does not address plaintiff’s arguments that his claim
is not time barred and that the state court judgment concerning this
matter is res judicata.
Apart from the retaliation claim discussed above, to the extent
that Samuels’ complaint may be read to state claims for (1) the
violation of his due process rights or (2) the filing of a false
disciplinary charge, as discussed in the magistrate judge’s report,
No. 03-30589
-3-
Samuels has abandoned such claims by failing to brief them. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly,
with respect to such claims, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.