1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 96-30285.

Thomas TIGHE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Richard A. WALL, Warden; John McGovern; Capt. Bordelon,

Defendants-Appellees.

Nov. 27, 1996.

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the W estern

District of Louisiana.

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the

district court erred in dismissing Thomas Tighe's § 1983 claim

alleging that prison o fficials retaliated against him for

exercising his First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to

his fellow inmates. Because we conclude that the district court

properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgmen t and

dismissed Tighe's § 1983 claim, we affirm.

I.

In October 19 92, Thomas Tighe, then a state prisoner at

Avoyelles Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana, was

assigned to the position of "inmate counsel s ubstitute." In

February 1993, he was removed from that position for what officials

called "unsatisfactory job performance"; the Avoyelles' warden

later filed an affidavit in conne ction with this case asserting2

that he believed Tighe had improperly called the family of an

inmate about allegations of physical abuse within the prison.

Tighe denied making such a call and asserted that another inmate

counsel was responsible. In March 1993, Tighe was transferred to

Phelps Correctional Center in DeQuincy, Lou isiana, to finish

serving his state sentence. He is currently serving his federal

prison sentence in Florence, Colorado.

II.

"To state a claim of retaliation an inmate must allege the

violation of a spe cific constitutional right and be prepared to

establish that but for the retaliatory motive the complained of

incident

... would not have occurred." W ood s v. Smith, 60 F.3d

1161, 1166 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct.

800, 133 L.Ed.2d 747 (1996). Such motivation may be established by

alleging " "a chronology of events from which retaliation may

plausibly be inferred.' " I d. (citation omitted). Thus, to

survive summa ry judgment, Tighe must allege a violation of a

constitutional right and demonstrate a re taliatory motive. He

argues that his First Amendment right of free speech includes the

right to give legal assistance to fellow inmate s and that he was

removed from his job as inmate counsel and later transferred to

another prison in retaliation for exercising this right.

A prisoner has no constitutionally pro tected interest in a

particular facility or a specific work assignment. O lim v.1 A few courts have held that inm ates have a First Amendment

right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates. N ewsom v.

Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 375-77 (6th Cir.1989); R izzo v. Dawson, 778

F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985); B aker v. Zlochowon, 741 F.Supp. 436

(S.D.N.Y. 1990); W iideman v. Angelone, 848 F.Supp. 136, 139

(D.Nev.1994). This Court does not find the reasoning of those

decisions persuasive.

3 Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1745, 75 L.Ed.2d

813 (1983); B ulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48,

49 (5th Cir.1995). The right to act as inmate counsel in a certain

facility is no exception to that general rule. As the Eighth

Circuit explained:

It is well established that inmates have a constitutional

right of access to the court. This right entitles inmates to

receive legal assistance from fellow inmates unless prison

officials provide reasonable alternative assistance. In the

absence of reasonable assistance, "[j]ailhouse lawyers have

standing to challenge official action that prevents them from

assisting other prisoners." There is, however, no right to be

or to receive legal assistan ce from a jailhouse lawyer

independent of the right of access to the court. Accordingly,

the transfer of a prisoner for "writ-writing" does not in and

of itself constitute the violation of a protected right.

Gassler v. Rayl, 862 F.2d 706, 707-08 (8th Cir.1988) (ci tations

omitted); s ee also Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3 d 373, 378 (6th

Cir.1993); W illiams v. Nix, 1 F.3d 712, 716 (8th Cir.1993); S mith

v. Maschner, 8 99 F.2d 940, 950 (10th Cir.1990). 1 Tighe has not

argued that he or his fellow inmates have been denied access to the

courts; instead, he argues that inmates were deprived of his legal

assistance. Prisoners have no right to a particular prisoner's

help in legal matt ers as long as the putative recipient's

constitutional right of access to the courts is not infringed.4

Smith, 899 F.2d at 950, see also Lewis v. Casey,

--- U.S. ----, 116

S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.E d.2d 606 (1996). Because he has failed to

demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right, Tighe's

retaliation claim fails.

III.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal o f

Tighe's § 1983 claim.

AFFIRMED.