In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 03-4190

ROBERT HOSKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CONNIE LENEAR, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.

No. 03 C 50412—Philip G. Reinhard, Judge.

____________

SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 30, 2004—DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2005

____________

Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Robert Hoskins, an Illinois prisoner,

brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison

staff retaliated when he exercised his right to use the prison’s grievance system. The district court dismissed the suit

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a

claim. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

The facts according to Hoskins, which we accept as true,

are as follows. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 611-12

(7th Cir. 2000). On January 17, 2003, Hoskins was working

his job in the cafeteria at Dixon Correctional Center when

Officer Connie Lenear, the food services supervisor, called
2 No. 03-4190

him a racial epithet because he could not help her locate

cartons of chocolate milk. Hoskins immediately reported the

incident to Lenear’s supervisor and was told that he should

file a grievance, which he did that same day.

Three days later, on January 20, Hoskins was talking to

another inmate when Lenear approached him. Hoskins told

Officer Lenear that he was not speaking to her. Shortly

thereafter, a different inmate reported to Hoskins that

Lenear had said she intended to get Hoskins transferred out

of Dixon. The inmate also said he had overheard Captain

Schott, a shift supervisor, tell Lenear that she should write

up a disciplinary ticket and he would take care of Hoskins.

Lenear in fact wrote up a disciplinary ticket for “insolence”

that day. That evening, on Schott’s instructions, Hoskins

was placed on “investigative status” and taken to segregation.

The next day, January 21, Hoskins lodged grievances

concerning both Officer Lenear and Captain Schott. These

grievances alleged that Lenear had falsified the disciplinary

ticket for insolence to retaliate for the grievance Hoskins had

filed against her on January 17, and that Schott had

worked with Lenear to engineer his placement in segregation, again to retaliate for the January 17 grievance.

Hoskins was found guilty of the insolence charge on

January 28 and, as punishment, lost his work assignment

in the cafeteria. Although he was not ordered to serve a

term in segregation, he nonetheless remained there on investigative status. On February 11 he was visited there by

Internal Affairs Officer Robert Bock, who told Hoskins that

he did not know “what exactly he was investigating,” and

that he only knew that Hoskins and Officer Lenear were “not

getting along.” Then on February 17 Hoskins was visited by

Captain Schott, who promised to “make things go away” if

Hoskins would do the same. When Hoskins answered that

he would not drop the grievances against either Schott or
No. 03-4190 3

Lenear, Schott responded that he would have Bock “write

up” a disciplinary case that would get Hoskins “sent out of

the prison.”

The day after Captain Schott’s visit, Hoskins received a

disciplinary report, written by Bock and dated that same

day, charging him with making “possible verbal threats towards staff.” According to this report, informants had reported

to Bock that they witnessed Hoskins make “an inference

of physical harm” toward Lenear. Bock’s report does not

identify what Hoskins purportedly said, but based on the

report an adjustment committee found Hoskins guilty on

February 24 and sanctioned him with a demotion to C-grade

(a loss in privileges), two months in segregation, and a recommendation for a transfer. Hoskins was then transferred

to Lawrence Correctional Center.

After his transfer, Hoskins continued to challenge his disciplinary conviction for threatening Officer Lenear. On June

30, 2003, the Administrative Review Board concluded that

the conviction was not substantiated by the record and

remanded the case to the warden of Dixon “to have the

report rewritten to substantiate the charges.” The Board

directed the warden to timely forward the revised report to

the warden at Lawrence, where Hoskins was confined, to be

reheard. In mid-August, after hearing nothing more,

Hoskins wrote the Board, arguing that the warden at Dixon

had not acted in a timely manner and should not be given

more time. The Board agreed, and on September 10 directed

that Hoskins’ conviction be expunged, and that the reduction in status and two months in segregation be reversed.

The Board, however, did not order Hoskins transferred back

to Dixon.

Hoskins thereafter sued Officer Lenear, Captain Schott,

Officer Bock, the members of the adjustment committee

that found him guilty of threatening Lenear, and the

warden at Dixon. The district court, construing Hoskins’
4 No. 03-4190

claim as one that he was denied due process when he was

disciplined in retaliation for the grievances he filed against

Lenear and Schott, dismissed the complaint prior to service

for failure to state a claim. The court, although recognizing

that Hoskins was not returned to Dixon, reasoned that he

received all the process that was due through his administrative appeals because the ill effects of the retaliation

were cured when the other punishments were overturned.

The court also went on to conclude that Hoskins had not alleged a liberty interest sufficient to implicate due process.

We review that decision de novo. Zimmerman v. Tribble,

226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000).

To the extent that Hoskins claims he was denied due process based on these events, we agree with the district court

that his complaint fails to state a claim. We need not focus

on Hoskins’ success in his administrative appeals because,

as the district court observed, the disciplinary case, even if

it was fabricated, implicated no federally protected liberty

interest. The punishments Hoskins suffered because of his

disciplinary conviction (demotion in status, segregation, and

transfer) raise no due process concerns. See Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) (disciplinary segregation);

Thomas v. Ramos, 130 F.3d 754, 761-62 & n.8 (7th Cir.

1997) (temporary segregation and demotion to C-grade

status); Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2004)

(transfer).

However, we disagree with the district court’s analysis of

Hoskins’ retaliation claim. In our view, due process and

retaliation claims are analyzed differently. Conduct that

does not independently violate the Constitution can form

the basis for a retaliation claim, if that conduct is done with

an improper, retaliatory motive. Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d

267, 275 (7th Cir. 1996). In Babcock, a prisoner alleged that

officers retaliated against him for exercising his right to file

a grievance. In that case, we recognized that the retaliatory

action complained of by the prisoner (placement in adminis-
No. 03-4190 5

trative detention) did not amount to a protectable liberty

interest. However, we held that a prisoner may still maintain a retaliation claim even when the retaliatory actions do

not independently violate the Constitution. Babcock, 102

F.3d at 275.

Prisoners are entitled to utilize available grievance procedures without threat of recrimination, Walker v. Thompson,

288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002), and to state a claim,

Hoskins was required only to allege enough to put the defendants on notice and enable them to file an answer. Higgs

v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002). Hoskins’ allegations against Officer Lenear, Captain Schott, and Officer

Bock specified a retaliatory action (filing a false disciplinary

report), named them as defendants, and asserted a constitutionally protected activity, the exercise of which caused

the officers’ retaliatory action (his grievance against Lenear).

Hoskins’ complaint is therefore sufficient to state a retaliation claim. Higgs, 286 F.3d at 439. If believed, Hoskins’

claim that Lenear, Schott, and Bock filed and pursued a

false disciplinary case on account of his grievances against

Lenear and Schott would entitle him to damages. Babcock,

102 F.3d at 275.

We note though, that Hoskins states a retaliation claim

only as against these three defendants. Even though he also

names the members of the adjustment committee and the

warden as defendants, these additional defendants, by

Hoskins’ account of events, did not participate in acts of

retaliation. Thus, we can affirm the dismissal of Hoskins’

suit as to them.

Accordingly, we VACATE the dismissal of Hoskins’ retaliation claim against Officer Lenear, Captain Schott, and

Officer Bock, and REMAND for further proceedings. In all

other respects, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
6 No. 03-4190

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—1-7-05