Doyle, William v. Pasquino, Officer , 207 F. App'x 713 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted December 7, 2006*
    Decided December 8, 2006
    Before
    Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
    Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    No. 06-1724
    WILLIAM DOYLE,                                  Appeal from the United States
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                       District Court for the Southern
    District of Illinois
    v.
    No. 05-251-MJR
    OFFICER PASQUINO, et al.
    Defendants-Appellees.                      Michael J. Reagan,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Illinois prisoner William Doyle brought this suit under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    ,
    alleging that Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) officers at Menard
    Correctional Center harassed him and retaliated against him for filing grievances.
    Screening Doyle’s complaint, the district court dismissed the suit as frivolous under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915A and assessed a strike against Doyle pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). Doyle now appeals. We affirm, but for different reasons.
    *
    The appellees notified this court that they were never served with process in
    the district court and would not be filing a brief or otherwise participating in this
    appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that
    oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the
    record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    No. 06-1724                                                                    Page 2
    Doyle’s complaint alleged that after he filed grievances against Officer
    Pasquino in April 2004, corrections officers retaliated against him by harassing him
    and “throwing away” his grievances. Doyle alleged that from March through
    December 2004 he filed at least 18 grievances against corrections employees; in
    most he complained about officers yelling at him, laughing at him, or making faces
    at him (at least six alleged that Officer Pasquino glared at Doyle with a “super
    tough guy face”). Doyle also complained about a May 18 incident in which Officers
    Pasquino and Wagner administered an unusual search (Wagner searched his
    clothes while Pasquino stood very close to him), and a July 2 incident in which
    Officer Baker said to another corrections officer, allegedly referring to Doyle, “He’s
    going to keep messing around and get his mother fucking ass whipped.” The
    remainder of Doyle’s grievances charged unnamed corrections officers with
    deliberately throwing away his grievances. Doyle alleged that his grievances were
    “lost” as part of the “conspiracy . . . to retaliate” against him.
    The district court construed Doyle’s complaint not as alleging retaliation, but
    rather as asserting Eighth Amendment and Due Process violations based on his
    allegations of verbal harassment and deliberately ignored grievances. Finding such
    claims frivolous, the district court dismissed the suit under § 1915A. Doyle now
    appeals, arguing that he adequately stated a retaliation claim by alleging that he
    was harassed, threatened, and denied access to the courts for filing grievances
    against prison officials.
    We review dismissals under § 1915A de novo and will affirm only when it
    appears beyond doubt that no set of facts supports the plaintiff’s claim. Wynn v.
    Southward, 
    251 F.3d 588
    , 591-92 (7th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). A prisoner’s
    retaliation claim is subject to a liberal notice pleading standard; to comply with
    1915A, as with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the complaint need specify only the bare
    minimum facts necessary to notify the defendants and the court of the nature of the
    claims. See Higgs v. Carver, 
    286 F.3d 437
    , 439 (7th Cir. 2002). The “bare
    minimum” in a retaliation claim are the facts that would apprise the defendants of
    what the plaintiff did to provoke the alleged retaliation and what they did in
    response. See Higgs, 
    286 F.3d at 439
    ; Walker v. Thompson, 
    288 F.3d 1005
    , 1012
    (7th Cir. 2002) (“a plaintiff alleging retaliation must reference, at a minimum, the
    suit or grievance spawning the retaliation and the acts constituting the retaliatory
    conduct.”) (Ripple, J. concurring).
    Doyle’s complaint easily meets the liberal notice pleading requirements; he
    identified the retaliatory action (harassment and the intentional disregarding of his
    grievances), named the defendants, and asserted a constitutionally-protected
    activity that spurred the retaliation (filing grievances). See Hoskins v. Lenear, 
    395 F.3d 372
    , 375 (7th Cir. 2005).
    No. 06-1724                                                                     Page 3
    Nevertheless, a plaintiff can plead himself out of court by alleging facts that
    undermine the validity of his claim. Henderson v. Sheahan, 
    196 F.3d 839
    , 846 (7th
    Cir. 1999); Thomson v. Washington, 
    362 F.3d 969
    , 970 (7th Cir. 2004). Here, to
    prevail on the merits of his retaliation claim, Doyle eventually would need to
    establish that the defendants’ actions were taken in retaliation for exercising a
    constitutionally protected right. See DeWalt v. Carter, 
    224 F.3d 607
    , 618 (7th Cir.
    1999). A prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the courts “includes the right to
    pursue the administrative remedies that must be exhausted before a prisoner can
    seek relief in court.” 
    Id.
     The right protects only potentially meritorious complaints;
    it does not extend to frivolous claims. See Lewis v. Casey, 
    518 U.S. 343
    , 353 n.3
    (1996); Pratt v. Tarr, 
    464 F.3d 730
    , 732 (7th Cir. 2006); Lehn v. Holmes, 
    364 F.3d 862
    , 868 (7th Cir. 2004).
    Doyle’s retaliation claim cannot succeed because his pleadings show that his
    grievances were entirely frivolous. In his complaint he described the incidents
    underlying his grievances and attached most of the grievances themselves. The
    incidents are trivial. The worst injuries he alleged were an unusual search of his
    clothes, a single incident of threatening language, and being subjected to a prison
    guard with a “super tough guy face.” His complaint that some of his grievances
    were deliberately misplaced could not succeed either; there is no injury in the loss of
    a frivolous claim. Lewis, 
    518 U.S. at
    353 n.3. As the Supreme Court stated in
    Lewis, “[d]epriving someone of a frivolous claim . . . deprives him of nothing at all,
    except perhaps the punishment of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions.”
    
    Id.
     Since the facts Doyle pleaded show that he was not exercising a constitutionally
    protected right when he filed the grievances that allegedly triggered the defendants’
    retaliatory acts, his pleadings undermine the validity of his claim.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and an
    additional strike is assessed against Doyle pursuant to 1915(g).