The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

__________

95-1768

__________

James W. Chambers, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Morgan Warren; Bill Rodgers; * Eastern District of Missouri

Rick Jones; William Kitchell; *

Fred Johnson; Allen Luebbers; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Paul K. Delo; Dora B. Schriro, *

*

Appellees. *

__________

Submitted: Sepember 12, 1995

Filed: December 1, 1995

__________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

__________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate James W. Chambers appeals from an order of the

district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison

1

officials in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

Chambers filed two informal grievances against correctional officers

during July 1993. One alleged that a correctional officer had stolen

photos of Chambers' wife from his cell and scratched his television. In

the other Chambers claimed that a guard had set him up with a small

quantity of marijuana. Chambers received conduct
-2-

violations based on the content of the two grievance letters. The first

violation was for giving false information and the second for insulting

behavior. The defendant prison officials concluded Chambers was guilty in

each instance based solely on the statements of the guards he had accused

of wrongdoing. He was given suspended activity restrictions for each

violation.

On appeal within the prison grievance system, both conduct violations

were expunged in October 1993. In exchange, Chambers agreed in writing

that the expunctions were the final resolutions of his grievances.

This federal court action had been filed a month earlier. Count I

of the verified complaint alleged high-ranking prison officials had adopted

an unwritten policy of allowing lower-ranking officials to retaliate

against inmates by punishing them for filing grievances. Counts II and III

alleged that the officers directly involved in the incidents described

above knew or should have known they violated his rights to petition for

redress by punishing him. Count IV stated that he had asked Paul Delo,

superintendent of the Potosi Correctional Facility, to correct the

constitutional violations and that he had refused. The district court

granted summary judgment on all counts after concluding that Chambers had

not presented evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the

conduct violations were false.

On appeal, Chambers argues that his verified complaint alleged that

the conduct violations were false. We need not reach the issue ruled on

by the district court, however, because Chambers executed valid releases

of his claims against the defendants in return for expunction of his

violations. An inmate may settle his claims voluntarily like any other

litigant. The statements signed by Chambers accepted the expunctions as

the "final resolution to [his] complaint" and a "final resolution to [his]

grievance." There is no evidence in the record to suggest he was coerced

in any
-3-

way, and his federal court action was pending when he signed the

agreements.

These facts are unlike those in Dixon v. Brown, 38 F.3d 379, 379 (8th

Cir. 1994), in which prison officials unilaterally dismissed charges

against an inmate after he alleged in a federal court action that they were

filed in retaliation against him. Since injury inheres at the time a

retaliatory charge is filed, the inmate's § 1983 action could not be

mooted by the unilateral action of prison officials. Id. In this case,

however, Chambers voluntarily released his claims and is therefore barred

from pursuing this action. 

Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.