Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-08-30315/USCOURTS-ca5-08-30315-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell Dykes
Appellee
Gerald Joseph
Appellant
Vernon Smith
Appellee
Jerry Young
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30315

GERALD JOSEPH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DARRELL DYKES, Captain at Rayburn Correctional Center;

JERRY YOUNG, Classification Officer at Rayburn Correctional Center;

VERNON SMITH, Lieutenant at Rayburn Correctional Center,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:06-CV-10810

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Joseph, a Louisiana prisoner, appeals a summary judgment in favor of prison officials on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. He argues that officers reUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 2, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 08-30315 Document: 00511039184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2010
No. 08-30315

2

taliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. We vacate and

remand. 

I.

While working as an inmate counsel in the Rayburn Correctional Center

(“RCC”), Joseph typed a letter to an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. The letter addressed the legal affairs of another inmate and the general

practices of prison security. Joseph was called away from his office, and when

he returned, the letter was no longer in the typewriter. The next day, he received a disciplinary report from Captain Darrell Dykes, alleging that the letter

violated RCC’s Rule 30K against making malicious statements about RCC or its

staff. A disciplinary board, made up of officers Jerry Young and Vernon Smith,

found Joseph guilty of the offense and punished him with the loss of his job as

inmate counsel and six months’ incentive pay.

Joseph filed a pro se, in forma pauperis § 1983 complaint against Dykes,

Young, and Smith. Arguing that the officers had retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sought monetary damages and reinstatement as inmate counsel. 

After a Spears hearing and unsuccessful settlement discussions, the officers moved for summary judgment. Finding that Joseph raised no cognizable

constitutional claims, the magistrate judge (“MJ”) recommended that the district

court grant summary judgment and dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Over

Joseph’s objections, the court adopted the MJ’s findings and conclusions. Joseph

appeals the denial of his retaliation claim based on the exercise of his rights under the First Amendment.

II.

We review a summary judgment de novo. Mayfield v. Tex. Dep’t of Crimin-

 Case: 08-30315 Document: 00511039184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2010
No. 08-30315

3

al Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate

“if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2). “We

are not bound by the reasons articulated by the district court . . . and may affirm

the judgment on other grounds.” Chriceol v. Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir.

1999). 

III.

To establish retaliation, a prisoner must show “(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.” McDonald

v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). Finding that Joseph’s complaint

did not implicate any constitutional rights, the district court granted summary

judgment on the first prong. Joseph contends, however, that the court misconstrued the nature of his claim under the First Amendment. He argues that the

court thought he was making an access-to-court claim, but he was actually making a free-speech retaliation claim. Construing his pro se complaint liberally,

Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), we conclude

that Joseph asserts both types of claim. 

Prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts, see

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), that is one aspect of the First

Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, see Cal.

Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). Joseph now

concedes that writing the letter did not implicate his right of access to the courts

under the First Amendment.

In adopting the MJ’s opinion, however, the district court applied the wrong

standard to the First Amendment free-speech claim. Relying on Johnson v. Rod-

 Case: 08-30315 Document: 00511039184 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2010
No. 08-30315

See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 823-27 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Morgan v. Quar- 1

terman, 570 F.3d 663, 666 (5th Cir. 2009).

 The record is insufficient for this court to resolve Joseph’s free-speech claims under 2

Turner, so the district court must address that issue on remand. The officers also claimed

qualified immunity in the district court, but neither party mentions that issue on appeal.

4

riguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997), the court found that Joseph had no cognizable First Amendment claim, because “‘[t]he relevant constitutional protection

. . . accrues to the benefit of the prisoner in whose name the lawsuit is filed, not

those who assist in the preparation of that lawsuit.’” Joseph v. Dykes, No. 06-

10810, 2008 WL 553193, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 27, 2008) (quoting Johnson, 110

F.3d at 311). The quoted section of Johnson, however, dealt only with the constitutional right of access to the courts. By conflating Joseph’s free-speech claim

with his access-to-court claim, the district court applied the wrong standard to

the former.

A prisoner’s free-speech claim must instead be analyzed under Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), in which the Court held that prisoner speech may 1

be curtailed if the regulation is “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” That standard determines the scope of Joseph’s free-speech rights and

must be applied on the first prong of his retaliation claim. Because the district

court applied the improper access-to-court standard to the underlying freespeech claim, the summary judgment on Joseph’s retaliation claim was in error.2

The summary judgment on the retaliation claim is VACATED, and this

matter is REMANDED for further action in accord with this opinion. We express no view on what decisions the district court should make on remand or on

the ultimate merits of the remaining issues.

 Case: 08-30315 Document: 00511039184 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2010