F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jan uary4, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1162 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 14 34 4- CV-J EM MIC HAEL E . ROWAN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us J A M ES HA RR I S , a s War d e no f M art i nC o u n ty Co rr ec tio na l I nst itutio n and i n hi s in div idu al cap aci ty, DEVERE INMAN, ind iv idua ll y an d a s As si st an t Warde n, Mar ti n C ou nt y

Co rrec ti on al Ins ti tu ti on , S. PA RKE R, indiv iduallyand as Senior Cl as si fic at io n Off

ic er, Ma rti n C ou nt y

Co rrec ti on al Ins ti tu ti on , S. PIC KE TT , individu ally and as Lie utenant for Mar ti n C ou nt y

Co rrec ti on al Ins ti tu ti on , L . H A RR IS , ind ivi dua lly and a s C la ssi fi catio n O ff ic er f or Mart in C ounty

Co rr ec tio na l In st itut io n, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J an ua ry4, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Mi ch ae l E . Ro w an , apr iso ne r fo rm er ly inc ar ce rate d a t M ar

tinCo unty Correc tional Insti tutio n (“ MCI”) in Florida, a ppeals the dist rict court’ s dism issal of his pro se 42 U.S .C. § 1983 com plaint, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ), fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m on whi ch rel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed . On ap pe al , Ro w anf

ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by f ind ing that he f

ai le d to state a§ 19 83 r et al ia tio n c la im a ga ins t of

fi ci al s at M CI . T he c ourt, he arg ue s, m isc onstru ed

the f ac ts a sse rt ed

in the c om

pla int . R ow anc ont en ds tha t hi s co m pla int a sse rt ed that he w as r et al ia te d a ga ins t f or w ri tin g gr ie vanc es a ga ins t and/or to Offic ers Re ed and Jones. Rowan’ s com plaint alleged that he was re ta liate d a ga ins t by

O ff ic er s L am or e an d Jo ne s, and the oth er nam ed de fe ndants ha d part ic ipate d inthe r et al ia tor y a ct s of L am or e an d Jo ne s by

uph old ing f

al se dis ci pli nary

r ep orts, and b y

opp osi ng, im

pe din g, and d ist ortin g, a s w el l a s f ai lin g to in ve st ig at e, act s o f of

fic er m is co nduc t an d re pr is al in an effo rt t o c ov er t he m up .“[Section] 1915(e) only applies to ca ses in which the plaintiff is proc eedingI FP.” 1 Fa rese v. Schere r, 342 F .3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2003). Rowan is proc eedingI FP. 3 Rowan a lleges that his com plaint su fficiently

showed a ca

usal connection betwee n hi s fi li ng of g rie va nc es an d t he is su an ce an d uph ol di ng of d is ci pl in ary rep or ts . U nit ed S ta te s C ode , T itl e 28, S ec tio n 19 15( e) pr ovi de s, int er a lia , that any in f orm a paupe ri s ( “ IF P” ) a ct ionor appe al sha ll be dis m iss ed a t any ti m e if it f ai ls 1 to st at e a cl ai m

on whi ch rel ie f m ay

be gra nt ed . 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ). A dis tr ic t c ourt' s di sm iss al f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im , pur suant t o § 191 5(e)( 2)(B) (ii), is review ed de novo, usin g the sam e standards that gov ern Fed. R.C iv.P. 12(b)(6) dism issals, and viewing the allegations in the com plaint as true. See Mitchell v. F arca ss, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). While noti ce ple ad ing doe s no t r equir e the c om pla inant t o a lle ge af

ac t t o c ove r ev er

y e le m en t of a cla im , “ it is still necessary that a com

plaint cont ain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all th e m aterial e lem ents necessary to sust ain a re covery unde r som e via

ble le ga l the or

y . ” Ro e v. A w ar e W om anCtr. f or Ch oic e, I nc . , 253 F.3 d 6 78 , 68 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) .

“ First A m endm ent rights to fre e speech and to petition the governm ent for a re dr es s of gr ie vanc es are vio la te d whe n apr iso ne r is p uni she d f or f ili ng a4

gr ie vanc e co nc er

nin g th e co ndi tio ns o f his im pr iso nm en t. ” Bo xe r Xv. H ar ri s, 437 F. 3d 1 107, 111 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( ci tin g W ild be rg er v. Br ac kne ll, 869 F . 2d 1 467, 1468 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ); F ar ro wv. W es t, 320 F . 3d 1 235, 124 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) (“ The F irst Am endm ent forbids priso n officials fr om retaliating against prison ers fo r ex er ci sin g th e ri ght

of f re e spe ec h. ”) ( ci tin g T hom as v. E vans, 880 F . 2d 1 235, 1242 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ). Apla int if f al le gin g r et al ia tio n un de r the F ir st A m en dm en t

“ ne edno t al le ge vi ol at io n o f a s ep arat e an d d is ti nc t co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht [,] . . . [r ] athe r, the gis t of

ar et al ia tio n c la im

is that a pr iso ne r is p en al iz ed

f or e xe rc isi ng the r igh t of

f re e spe ec h. ” F ar

ro w , 320 F . 3d at 12 48 ( int er na l c itatio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). U nde r our pr ec ed en t R ow an“ can e sta bli sh r et al ia tio n by de m onstratin g th at

the pr iso n of

fi ci al ’ s a ct ion s w er e the r es ult of his havin g f

ile d a gr ie vanc e co nc er

nin g th e co ndi tio ns o f his im pr iso nm en t. ” I d. Fo r the r ea sons se t out be loww e can a ssum e ar gue ndo, but ne ed not de ci de that R ow anha s a lle ge d f

ac ts tha t su

ppor t hi s c la im

of r et al ia tio n, and h is co m pla int doe s se t out the r equis ite f ac tua l e le m en ts t o m ak e out ac la im f or F ir st Am en dm en t re ta li at io n u nd er o urpre ced en t ag ai ns t s om e o f th e n am edde fen da nt s. Specifica lly , he contends that he rec eived two punish m ents–a fifteen day probation for contraband and a thirty day probation for ly ing to the staff–that w ere the r es ult of tw o pr iso n of

fi ce rs ’ dr ive to puni sh R ow anf or his f re que ntEven thoug h this standing issue wa s not raised by the cour t below, we must re view our 2 jurisdiction over appe als at all times throug hout the appellate proce ss. Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 ( 11th Cir. 1988). 5 g ri ev an ce s . Hi s co m

p l ai n tal l eg es th at b as edo nth e f re qu en cy o f R o wa n ’s grievances and the fac t that at least one grievance w as directed at O ffice r Jones spe ci fi ca lly , both nam ed

of fi ce rs w ho s ubj ec te d hi m to the pur

porte d r et al ia tio n kne wof his gr ie vanc es and t ook ac tio n a ga ins t hi m w ith in d ay s, and e ve n ho ur s, of rec eipt of specific grievances. Rowan m ay have, ther efore, alleged that he has en ga ge d inpr ote ct ed

c ondu ct ( fi le d gr ie vanc es ), ha s su ff er ed a dve rs e co nse que nc es or

pun ish m en t ( tw o pe ri ods of pr obatio n) , and tha t the re is pe rh ap s a cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he ad ve rs e co ns eque nc es an d h is pro te ct edsp eech . O n th e oth er

hand, the dis ci pli nary

c harg es ( w hic h R ow anc la im s c onst itute the ret al ia ti on ) se em

em in en tl y

reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces . A lth oughw e m ay

dis ag re e w iththe m ag istrate and d istri ct c ourts b el ow (and thus le av e ope n whe the r Ro w anha s r ai se d ac ogni za ble r et al ia tio n c la im unde r the F ir st A m en dm en t) , w e ar e sa tis fi ed that the r el ie f Ro w anse ek s m oot s his case. Rowan has two equitable ground s for re lief: first, he desires declar atory

2
re lie f to p re ve nt f

urthe r re ta liatio n by

the nam ed

de fe ndants ; se co nd, he se ek s to have his dis ci pli nary

r ec or d, a s it

pe rt ai ns t o th e tw o c om

pla ine d of

inc ide nts , expung ed . N ei the r of

the se gr ound s f

or r el ie f pr es en ts the Co urt w ithaj ust ic ia bleRowan has a lleg ed that for fea r of r etaliation at MCIhe ce ased to grieve in the manner 3 he wa s acc ustomed to prior to the purporte d reta liation. However , other than the specific alleg ed inc ide nts at MC I , Ro wa

n p ro vid e s u s w ithno ba sis to f ind tha t he fa c e s a

re a l or imm e diate threat of reta liation at his present, new fac ility . Rowan’s brie f on appe al ac knowledg es that the “ ‘fa ct or duration’ of his sentence is not 4 aff ecte d by the disciplinary

repor ts.” 6 issue. In the interim

tim e pending th e outcom e of this case, Rowan has been tr an sf er re d to anothe r pr iso n f

ac ili ty in Fl or ida

and the guard s a ga ins t whom he se ek s e qui ta

ble r el ie f ar e no l onge r in a pos iti on t o r et al ia te a ga ins t hi m or f ai l t o respond to his grievances. S ee S pears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11 th Cir. 1988 ) (r ecognizing p risoner’ s claim s concerning prison conditio ns are m oot when pr iso ne r tr an sf

er re d to anothe r fa ci lity ); Co tte ra ll v. P au l, 755 F . 2d 7 77, 780 ( 11th Ci r. 198 5) ( “ Pa st e xpos ur e to i lle ga l c ondu ct doe s no t i n it se lf

sho wape ndi ng ca se or c ontro ve rs y

r eg ar din g in

j unc tiv e re lie f if

una cc om panie d by any continu ing, present injury or rea l and imm ediate threat of repeate d injury .” ) (quot at ionand c itatio n om itt ed ). F urthe r, a s ali fe inm at e in the F lor ida pr iso n 3 sy ste m , w e fa il to s ee howe xpun ge m en t of Ro w an ’ s di sc ipl inary

r ec or d c re at es a j ust ic ia ble c as e or

c ontro ve rs y . S ee Be nne tt v. H en dr ix, 423 F . 3d 1 247, 125 3

4 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( “ Fo r A rt ic le I II standi ng p ur pose s . . . pla int if

f m ust a lle ge pe rs ona l i nj ur

y f ai rl y tr ac ea ble to the de fe ndant' s a lle ge dly unl aw fu l c ondu ct

and lik el y to be r edre sse d by

the r eque ste d r el ie f. A s lo ng a s th e inj ur y is dis tin ct

and7

palpable rather than abstract, conje ctural, or hy poth etical, it is sufficient to confer st an di ng .”) (q uo ta ti on s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Rowan a dditi onally

seeks costs and no m inal dam ages. It is abundantl y clear on thi s record that his nom inal dam ages claim will not survive a qualified im m uni ty ana ly sis . S ee D ar

tland v . Me tr o. D ad e Co unty , 866 F . 2d 1 321, 1323 (1 1thCi r. 198 9) ( fi ndi ng i n ana log ous publ ic e m plo y ee ’ s sp ee chc ont ex t on ly the

“ extraordinary

case” will re sult in a finding of a clear ly established cons titutio nal violatio n). W e ar e em

powere d in lim ited circum stances such as these to consi der the qualified imm

unityquestion prior to deciding whether the plaintiff has d e mo n s tr a t e dac o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n . S e e , e . g . Eh r l i c h v . To w no f Gl a s t o nb u ry, 348 F. 3d 4 8, 57 ( 2d C ir

200 3) ( re co gni zi ng tha t i n si tuatio ns whe re de te rm ini ng the constitu tional vi olation depends on fac tual issu es not y et developed, court need not decide consti tutio nal violatio n questio n before r eaching qualified im m uni ty ); D ir

rane v. Br ookl ine P oli ce D ep ’ t, 315 F . 3d 6 5, 69- 70 ( 1st Ci r. 200 2) (“ But it is an uncom fortable exer cise w here, as here, the answer whether there w as a violation m ay

depend on a kaleido scope of facts not y et fully developed. It m ay be that Saucier

wa s not st rictly

intended to cover the latter case. ”). H aving failed to m ak e out

ac la im f or e ith er inj unc tiv e or

le ga l r el ie f, Ro w an ’ s c la im s st an d to be di sm is se d.8

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t t he refo re i s AFF IRM ED.