Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03285/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3285

___________________________

Joe Leonard Bell, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

DannyBurl,Warden,East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC (originallynamed asD.Burl)

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Jeremy Andrews, Major, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC (originally named as

Jermy C. Andrews)

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

Curtis L. Rolfe, III, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: May 20, 2015

Filed: July 1, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

Appellate Case: 14-3285 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Entry ID: 4290738 
PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Joe Bell, Jr. brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming, as

relevant to this appeal, that defendant Jeremy Andrews, a correctional officer at the

facility where Bell was imprisoned, retaliated against Bell for exercising his

constitutional rights. Andrews moved for summary judgment, based in part on

qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, and Andrews appeals. 1

Having confined our review, as we must, to issues of law, see Stoner v.

Watlingten, 735 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2013) (de novo review); Robbins v. Becker,

715 F.3d 691, 693 (8thCir. 2013) (jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity

exists only to extent that denial turns on issue of law), we conclude that the court

properly denied the motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. 

A § 1983 retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to “show (1) he engaged in a

protected activity, (2) the government official took adverse action against him that

would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing the activity, and (3) the

adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise ofthe protected activity.” 

Spencer v. Jackson Cnty., 738 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). 

“The retaliatory conduct itself need not be a constitutional violation; the violation is

acting in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.” Id.

(quotation omitted). We find no legal error in the district court’s conclusion that

Bell’s reassignment to the hoe squad, after he had successfully contested prisondisciplinary chargesinitiated by Andrews, amounted to a constitutional violation that

was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See id. (worsening

inmate’s working conditionsmay constitute adverse action); Dible v.Scholl, 506 F.3d

The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J.

Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3285 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Entry ID: 4290738 
1106, 1111 (8th Cir. 2007) (court has broad view of what makes “clearly established

law” for purposes of qualified immunity). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. 47B.

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3285 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2015 Entry ID: 4290738