### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 25, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1614 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00685 -CV -N E L MO RE N IC H O L S, JR . , ind ivi dua lly and o n be ha lf of a ll oth er s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us BO B R IL E Y , G ove rn or

of the S tate of

A la bam a, in h i s i n d i v i du a l an do f

f i c i a l c ap a c i ty, D O N A L C A M P B E L L , C o mmi s s i o n e r o f th e A l ab a ma Pri so n S y st em , in hi s i nd iv idua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty, etal., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 25 , 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

E lm or e N ic hol s, Jr . , an A la bam a state pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pro se , appe al s the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent to the defendants in h is 42 U.S .C. § 19 83 a ct ion
. N ic hol s c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s w ithr es pe ct

to his claim s that: (1) the conditio ns of confinem ent at the Dr aper Cor rectional Center (“ D CC ”) vio late d hi s r igh ts unde r the E igh th A m en dm en t; an d ( 2) de fe ndant Jam es De Loac h, w arden of D CC, transfer red him to G. K. Fountain Correctional Center ( “ FCC” ) in retaliation for f iling his § 19 83 com

plaint. W e re view a district
co urt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo , and applythe sam e legal standards as the dis tr ic t c ourt. B utt

s v . Co unt y of V olu sia , 22 2 F .3d89 1, 8 92 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). A . E igh th A m en dm en t C lai m T he E igh th A m en dm en t, appl ic ab le to the state s th ro ugh the F ourte en th Am en dm en t, fo rb id s crue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts . U.S. Con st . am en d. VIII
. T his pr ote ct ione xte nds to the c ondi tio ns o f a pr iso ne r’ s c onf ine m en t, w hic h m

ust co nf orm to co nt em

po rary sta nd ard s o f de cen cy . R hodes v . Ch apm an , 452 U. S. 337, 347 , 101 S
. Ct
. 239 2, 239 9 ( 1981 ). T he E igh th A m en dm en t a lso pr ote ct s ag ai ns t fu tu re h arm

to pri so n i nm at es . He lling v. Mc Kinney , 509 U . S. 25, 33- 34, 113 S. Ct
. 247 5, 248 0- 81 ( 1993 ). A n in m at e m ay be gr an te d in

j unc tiv e or de cl ar at or

y r el ie f ev enin the abse nc e of pr oof that he a ct

ua lly ha s be eninj ur ed

by th e d an ge ro us co nd it io n. Se e id.3

T he dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by f ind ing that N ic hol s la ck ed standi ng b ec au se he fa ile d to de m onstrate that he ha d su ff er ed an a ct ua l, phy sic al inj ur

y . T he
co ndi tio ns o f co nf

ine m ent, if

f ound to be inhum an e, c onst itute d ade pr ivatio n of Nich ol s’s ri gh ts un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d, as su m in g t ha t t he ot he r two req ui rem en ts of s ta nd in g wer e m et , ent it le d h im to see k i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. Se e id. Prison officials violate the Eighth Am endm ent through “ the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” F arm er v . B re nnan , 511 U . S. 825 , 836 , 114 S
. Ct
. 1970 , 197 8 ( 1974 ). W an tonne ss h as be ende fi ne d a s “ de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to a subs tantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner.” Id

. T o e sta bli sh an E igh th A m en dm en t vi olatio n, apr iso ne r m ust pr ove both an ob

j ec tiv e an d asub

j ec tiv e co m po ne nt . M

iller v . Ki ng , 384 F . 3d 1 248, 126 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)
. “ U nde r the obj ec tiv e co m

pone nt, apr iso ne r m

ust pr ove the c ondi tio n he c om pla ins of is sufficiently

serious to vio late the E ighth Am endm ent.” Id
. U nde r the sub

j ec tiv e co m pone nt, the pr iso ne r m

ust pr ove that the pr iso n of

fi ci al a ct ed

w ith‘ de lib er at e indifference. ’ ” Id

. A ssum ing , w ith out

de ci din g, that N ic hol s of fe re d su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to allow a reasonable fac tfinder to conclude that the cond ition s of confinem ent at D CC w er e inhum an e, w e none the le ss c onc lud e that sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of D eL oa chw as pr ope r. B ec au se the und isp ute d e vid en ce de m onstrate d th at the4

A D C w as m ak ing ar ea sona ble e ff ort t o c or re ct the a lle ge d inhum an e co ndi tio ns o f confinem ent at D CC, a re asonable factfinder c ouldnot have conclud ed that DeLoa ch act edwit h d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce. Se e H alev . T allapoo sa , 50 F . 3d 1579 , 158 3 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5)
. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of
s u mmary j u d g me n to nN i c h o l s ’s E i g h th A me n d me n tc l a i m. B. R et ali at or y- Tr an sf

er C lai m Whil e aninm at e doe s no t have ac onst itutio na lly pr ote ct ed

li be rty int er es t ag ai ns t b ei ng tra ns ferr edto a le ss ag reeabl e p ris on , M oodyv . D agge tt , 429 U. S. 78, 88 n . 9, 97 S
. Ct
. 274 , 279 n. 9 ( 1976 ), pr iso n of fi ci al s m ay

not tr an sf er , or otherwise punish, an inm ate in reta liation for exercising his righ t to file grievances ag ai ns t p ris on off

ic ia ls , se e B rid

ges v . R uss el l , 757 F. 2d 11 55, 1157 (11t h Cir. 1985 ). S uc h r et al iator

y tr an sf er s vi olate an in m at e’ s F ir st Am en dm en t r igh ts and hi s ri gh t o f acc es s t o t he co ur ts . Se e W ild be rge r v . B rac kn el l , 869 F . 2d 1 467, 14 68 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). W e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by c onc lud ing that D eL oa chha d no t vio late d N ic hol s’ s r igh ts b y tr an sf er ri ng h im to FC C, w ith out

spe ci fi ca lly ad dr es sin g th e ac tua l r ea sons f or the tr an sf

er . I f N ic hol s w as tr an sf

er re d so le ly f or fi lin g hi s § 1 983 co m

pla int a ga ins t pr iso n of

fi ci al s, the n hi s c onst itutio na l r igh ts were v io la te d a ndhe was e nt it le d t o re li ef. Se e id.5

In an aff idavit, De Loac h stated that Nichols was transferre d because he w as fo und to b e in p oss es sio n of ac opy of the A D C’ s A dm ini str at ive Re gul at ion s and In st itut io na l St an da rdOper at in g P ro cedur es – a v io la ti on of p ris on reg ul at io ns . T ha t m ay be tr ue , but N ic hol s st at es in his own a ff idavit that he w as not tr an sf er re d f or dis ci pli nary

r ea sons , but

r at he r, sol el y

be ca use he ha d f

ile d hi s § 19 83 c om

pla int
. W ith out

m or e to e va luate , N ic hol s’ s a ff idavit suf fi ce s to c re at e a genuine factual dispute as to the actual reason for his transfer
. Ther efore,
summ ary j udgm ent was im

proper. Ac cordingly , w e vacate the grant of sum m ary j udgm en t i n f

av or of D eL oa chon N ic hol s’ s r et al iator y -transf er c la im , and r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. AF FIRMED IN P AR T, VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED IN P AR T.