Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a cognizable claim under § 1983, doc. 20, p. 10, but fails to address whether such harassment, if done in retaliation for an inmate’s having filed a lawsuit, would state a claim. It is well settled in this circuit that “prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate for exercising a constitutionally protected right.” Adams v. James, 784 F.2d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir.1986) (reaffirming the principle that “prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate for exercising a constitutionally protected right.”), relying on Bridges v. Russell, 757 F.2d 1155 (11th Cir.1985). See also Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.l997)(reversing the district court’s dismissal of an inmate’s First Amendment claim for retaliation); Harris v. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912, 916-17 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467, 1468 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a prisoners allegations that a corrections officer retaliated against the prisoner for the prisoners report charging the officer with misconduct properly stated a claim for retaliation noting that aji allegation of retaliation should not be ignored simply because the charge was later dismissed  (B) recognizing first amendment retaliation right (C) recognizing first amendment retaliation claim where official filed a disciplinary report following an inmates filing of a grievance (D) holding that summary judgment was inappropriate on first amendment claim where prisoner submitted affidavits by other prisoners which inferred that the defendants statements suggested he had filed disciplinary reports against plaintiff in retaliation for eailier litigation (E) holding that appellant had submitted sufficient evidence of racebased retaliation to survive summary judgment on his  1981 claim
Output (English): recognizing first amendment retaliation right