Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03323/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03323-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

+ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL A. STEPHENS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrui 

APR 2 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-3323 

(D. Kan. 89-3455-S) 

MICHAEL NELSON, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff filed a§ 1983 action alleging retaliatory transfer 

from one jail to another in violation of his First Amendment 

rights and that he was subjected to false disciplinary charges by 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3323 Document: 01019967138 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 1 
defendants. 1 Apparently defendants were not properly served and 

did not file a response to plaintiff's pleadings at the district 

court level. Nor have the defendants responded to plaintiff's 

appeal. 

Plaintiff's action is not frivolous because there is a 

rational argument on the law and facts which support the issues 

raised. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). The 

district court dismissed plaintiffs§ 1983 suit pursuant to 

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 216 (1976). However, Meachum and its 

companion case Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976), were 

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process cases and those cases do not 

preclude a suit alleging retaliatory transfer in violation of the 

prisoner's First Amendment rights. Circuit courts have found that 

prison officials cannot transfer prisoners in retaliation for the 

exercise of constitutionally protected rights. See Buise v. 

Hudkins, 584 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 916 

(1979). 

Although we express no opinion on the ultimate merits of 

petitioner's claim, the district court's dismissal of the suit 

under§ 1915(d) was improper. We therefore grant leave to proceed 

without prepayment of costs or fees. We VACATE the district 

court's order dismissing this action and REMAND with instructions 

1 In his brief on appeal, plaintiff states that the district 

court failed to address the claim that the First Amendment rights 

of other prisoners were violated when he was transferred. Because 

this issue was not clearly raised below, we will not address it on 

appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3323 Document: 01019967138 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 2 
for the district court to issue a summons to the defendants and to 

require the defendants to file a responsive pleading. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3323 Document: 01019967138 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 3