NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0056n.06 No. 09-3068 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

DAVI D E. CL ARK, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. N. J OHNSTON, e t al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO URT FORTHE NORTH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

BEF OR E: KEN NE DY , C OLE, and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Plaintiff D avid E. Clark challeng es the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt for def

endants, Ar

t J ames a nd L

. J ohnson, in Clark’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for r etaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Clark claims that the def endants we re not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim beca

use he pr esente d eno u gh ev i d ence to establish a constitutional violation. Howeve r, beca use Clark failed to de monstrate the protec ted c o n duct require d to make out a r etaliation claim, he f ailed to establish the nec essar y constitutional viol ation and the district cour

t’s g rant of summary judgme nt must st and. Clark a lso challeng es the district court’s sua

sponte dismissal of his othe r reta liation c laim, his denial-of -ac cess- to-courts claim, and his equal-pr otection claim, and Clar k argues that the district c ourt abused its discretion in making

se ve ra l discre ti on ary

ru lin g s. B e c a

us e of the lib e ra l pl e a din g re qu ir e me nts fo r p ro se lit ig a nts ,No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Th is p ri so n p oli c y

lim its the a mou

nt o f p e rs on a l and

le g a l pr op e rt

y an inm a te may

po sse ss, 1 wi tho ut s pe c ia l a

uth or iza tio n, to n ot m or e tha n 2 .4 c ub ic fe e t. - 2 - Clark’s other

reta liation claim must be reinstated, but the dismiss al of his re maining c laims must be

a ff ir me d. Mo re ov e r, Cla

rk ’s c ha lle ng e to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis c re tio na ry ru lin g s la c ks me ri t. I. I n Marc h 2007, Clark, a prisoner in the Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP) acting pro se, f iled a civil rig hts complaint ag ainst various prison off icials pursuant to § 1 9 8 3. Clark named thirte en de fe nd ants in h is o ri g ina l c omp la int , in c lud in g J a me s a nd John so n, and

a lle g e d d

ue pr oc e ss violations, cruel and unusua l punishment, denial of acce ss to courts, and violations of the First and Six th Amendments. Clark desc ribed the c onduct of prison officia ls from Marc h 2005 throug h J une 20 05 , a s c on sti tut ing

“ a patte rn of c a lc ulate d h ara ssm e nt a

nd re ta liatio n in

re sp on se to [Cl a rk ’s ] testify ing in f

eder al cour

t in a civil rig hts lawsuit broug ht by the A C L U

. . ., and for

complaining about ac tions of individual st aff , and conditions in [t he] prison.” Specif ically , Clark asser

ted that prison officia ls conducted a “pac k-up” of

his personal prope rty

“in violation o f

e s ta b li s h e d in s ti tution

and de pa rtme nt po lic y ,” sin g le d him ou t fo r a 2. 4 po lic y ins pe c tio n of his be lon g ing s, de nie d h im 1

a c c e ss t o h is le g a l pr op e rt y , a nd re ta liate d a g a ins t hi m w he n h e a tte mpt e d to c omp la in a bo ut h is treatment to an officia l from the Ohio De partment of Re habilitation and Correc tions (ODRC) who was visiting the pr ison. On J une 27, 2007, Clark f iled an ame nded complaint with the district cour t. This complaint included the same thirteen de fenda nts and adde d four m o re n amed defenda nts and one John Doe.No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 3 - I n h is a me nd e d c omp la int , Cl ark a lle g e d v iol a tio ns of

his F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt p ro pe rt

y ri g hts , equal protec tion r ights, First Amendment rig hts, Six th A mendment rig hts, and Eig hth Amendment ri g hts . Cl ark

c la ime d th a t pri so n sta ff “ c on sp ir [ed ] to vio la te [his ] c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts bo th f or [his ] pa rt ici pat ion

a nd te sti mony

in f e de ra l c ourt

in a c la ss a c tio n a g a ins t [th e pr iso n], a nd fo r [h is] complaints ag ainst some of t hem i ndividually .” I n particula r, Clark a sserted that he was de prived of var ious items of personal prope rty in violation of established prison policy , selec tively chosen by pr iso n o ff ic ia ls f or e nf or c e me nt a c tio n, r e t a l i a

t e d a g a i n st f or fi lin g c omp la int s and

g ri e va nc e s a g a ins t prison officia ls, threatene d by a prison officia l, denied acce ss to the courts throug h the depr ivation of his legal pro pe rt

y , p la c e d in

se g re g a tio n p ur su ant t o f a lse c on du c t r e po rt s, and e ntr a pp e d in to

makin g a fo rb idd e n thre e -w ay

te le ph on e c a ll a

nd su bs e qu e ntl y

punis he d f

or thi s c a ll. On J uly 12, 2007, the district court dismissed all of Clark’s claims sua sponte a nd pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), except part of his r etaliation claim ag ainst J ames and Johnson. The district court e x plained that it was “ require d to dismi ss an i n f o rm a p a u pe ris ac t i on under 28 U .S.C. § 19 15 (e ) i f i t f

a ils to s ta te a

c la im u po n w hic h r e lie f c an b e g ra nte d, or if it lac ks an a

rgua ble ba sis in law or fa ct.” In its ruling, the district cour t noted that there wer e no allegations in t he ame nded

c omp la int a g a ins t ma

ny of the name d d e fe nd ants , a

nd tha t “ [a] p la int if

f c ann ot e sta

bli shthe lia

bil ity of any defe ndant absent a clea r showing that the def

endant wa s persona lly

involved in the activities which for m the basis of the a lleg ed unconstitutional behavior.” Fur ther, the district court explained that: (1) as to Clark’ s claim of violation of due proc ess for de privation of per sonal proper ty , there

was no indication that Clark suffe red a n unconstitutional taking, a nd, even if

there was, Clark f

ailedNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 4 - to plead and pr ove that state r emedies f or re dressing the wrongwer e inade quate; (2) as to Clark’s claim of violation of due pr ocess f or seg reg ation , C lark fa iled to assert the e x istence of a

c on sti tut ion a lly

c og niza ble lib e rt y or pr op e rt y int e re st wi th wh ic h the state ha d int e rf e re d; ( 3) a s to Cla rk ’s e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la im, the re wa s n o s ug g e sti on that ot he r i nmate s w e re pe rm itt e d to po sse ss pr op e rt y in e xce ss o f t

he 2. 4 po li cy li mi ta tio n, no r t hat th e of

fi c e rs purp os e fu lly

int e nd e d to dis c ri min a te a gains t Cl ark be c a us e of his me mbe rs hip in a

su sp e c t c la ss; (4 ) a s to Cla rk ’s Ei g hth Amendment cla im, there we re no f acts a lleg ed to sug g est that an officer challeng ing Clar

k to a phy sical altercation presented the ty pe of extreme and serious deprivation re quired for this ty pe of claim; (5) a s to Clark’s claim of de nial of a cc es s t o courts, Clark f ailed to demonstrate that he

su ff e re d a ny a c tua l in jur y ; and (6) a s to Cla

rk ’s re ta liatio n c la ims re g ard ingthe de pr ivatio n o f h is persona l property , Clark failed to show that the adverse actions taken a g ainst him were motivated by the g ri e va

nc e s h e fi led. Th e se c la ims we re dis mis se d, le a vin g on ly Cla rk ’s re ta liatio n c la im

a g a ins t J a me s and John so n— in re g ard to pla c ing him in se g re g a tio n af te r spe a kin g wi th a

n O DR C officia l—for the district cour t to consider. Shortly there afte r, C lark moved to alter or amend this § 1915(e) judgme nt ag ainst him, and the motion was ref

err ed to Mag istrate Judge G eorg e J. L imbert fo r revie w. I n the meantime, the court issued an entry of def ault ag ainst the defe ndants pursuant to F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 55(a) beca

use they had fa iled to f

i l e an y pleading s in their defe nse, and Clar k later move d for a defa ult judgment. Howeve r, t he defenda nts soug ht to set aside this entry of def ault and opposed the mot ion fo r de fa ult jud g me nt b e c a

us e the y a lle g e d th a t th e y

ha d b oth pr omp tly su bmi tte d r e qu e sts ,No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 5 - pe r O DR C pr oc e dure , f

or Attor ne y Ge ne ra l r e pr e se ntatio n a

nd we re un awa

re that, d ue to a n O DR C

ov e rs ig ht, thi s r e pr e se ntatio n h a d n ot b e e n p ro vid e d. B e c a us e the de fe nd ants did

no t a c t w ill fu lly or intent i o nally

in delaying the proce eding s, Clark was not pre judiced by

the delay , and the defe ndants had a

number of pote ntially

meritorious defe nses, the district cour t gr anted the de fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to s e t a sid e the e ntr

y of de fa ult and de nie d Cla

rk ’s mot ion fo r d e fa

ult jud g me nt. D e f e n d an t s t h e nm o v e d

f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r

s t ayi n g d i s c o v e r

y u n t i l t h e i s s u e o f

qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y, which the de fenda

nts had as s er t ed , was re solved. The district cour t also g rante d this mot ion, and ruled that “ [o] nce the Court has issu ed i ts [ order on the motion to alter or ame nd the § 1915(e ) order ], t his case w ill procee d in a bifurc ated ba sis, with the issue of immuni ty addre ssed first.” I n Jan ua ry 20 08 , th e ma g istrate jud g e su bmi tte d his I nte ri m Re po rt and Re c omm e nd a tio n in

re gar d t o C l ar k ’s m o t i o nt o al t er o r a m en d

t h e § 1 9 1 5 (e ) j u d g m e n t
. T h e m agi s t ra t e j u d ge

re c omm e nd e d th a t th e c ourt g ra nt Clark ’s mot ion

ins of ar a s it re la te d to his c la im o f d e nia l of a c c e ss to courts bec ause of the alleg ed seizure of his leg al mater ials, but deny all of the re maining g rounds fo r r e lie f. I n h is r e c omm e nd a tio n r e g ard ingthe de nia l- of -access- to- c ourt s c la im, the ma g istrate judge explained: Pla int if f c la ims that he wa s una

ble to p le a d th e no n- fr iv ol ou s nat ure of his c la ims beca use he is unable to r emember the basis of his claims without acc ess to the leg al materia ls that he alleg es the prison off icials seized. Plaintiff further claims that he intends to fi l e a R u l e 26(B) A pplication for Reope ning of Appea l and a f

eder al ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion . L a stl y , Pl a int if f c on te nd s th a t he c an sh ow g oo d c a us e a s to why he did not fi le a 26( B) motion withi n 90 day s, as the Rule re quires, and he c on te nd s th a t he is a

ble to m a ke a

str on g sh ow ingof act ual in no c e nc e that w ou ld permit him to file a petition for habe as cor pus that would otherwise be barr ed.No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 6 - (Citations omi tted.) Thoug h the m ag istrate judge “ag ree [d] with J udg e L ioi’s application of the la w

and [fo un d] no c le ar e rr or ,” he ur g e d the tr ia l jud g e to us e he r dis c re tio n un de r F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e 59(e ) to g rant this motion to alter or amend. J udg e L imbert encour ag ed the district court to take this action “bec ause Plaintiff’s asser tion that he was impeded from suff iciently pleadingthe non-fr ivolous nature of his pote ntial suits is not the ty pe of asser

tion that is ty

pically expected under the notice- pleadingrequire ment,” and be cause “Plaintiff’s shortcomingdoes not prejudice De fe nd ants be c a

us e , a ssumin g his a lle g a tio ns are tr ue , he wa s inc a

pa ble of ple a din g the fa c tua l ba sis of his c la im d

ue to t he De fe nd ants ’ a c tio ns .” Ho we ve r, the dis trict cou rt reje c te d th e ma g istrate judge ’s re commendation in re g ard to the de nial-of- acc ess-to-c ourts claim, stating , “The Court adher es to its origina l conclusi o n t h at P l ai n tiff has fa iled to show actua l injury as a r esult of the conduct of

any defe n d an ts.” The district cour t adopted the r emainder

of the mag istrate judg e’s

re c omm e nd a tio n, and

de nie d Cl ark ’s mot ion

to a lte r o r a

me nd the jud g me nt. Cla rk mov e d fo r su mma

ry jud g me nt on the iss ue of qu a lif ie d im mun ity

in Jun e 20 08 . In h is mot ion , Cl a rk

argued that he wa s e ng a g e d in

c on sti tut ion a lly

pr ote c te d c on du c t w he n d e fe nd a nts too k a dv e rs e a c tio ns a g a ins t hi m, t hat th e se a dv e rse act io ns we re mot ive d b y thi s c on sti tut ion a lly protec ted conduc t, and that def endants would not have taken the se ac tions had the protec ted conduc t

no t oc c ur re d. F ur ther, Cl ark cla imed

that “ by fa ili ngto r e sp on d in

the tim e [al lotte d] pu

rs ua nt t o Fe d. R. Civ. P . 36(a) , to plaintiff’s re quests for a dmissions , defe ndants admit [ all of the a lleg ations in the motion] .” In response , defe ndants moved for summary judgme nt on t h e i s s u e of qualified immun ity

. De fe nd ants fi rs t argue d th a t no c on sti tut ion a lly pr ote c te d r ig ht h a d b e e n v iol a te d b e c a us eNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 7 - no inm a te ha s a

fe de ra lly pr ote c te d r ig ht t o b e fr e e fr om f a lse c on du c t r e po rt s, to fi le pe rs on a lpr op e rt y -l os s c la ims in s ta te c ourt , o r to di ctate ho w a state pr iso n d e pa

rtme nt w ill c on du c t it s bu sin e ss. De fe nd ants a lso a rgue d, in the a lte rn a tiv e , th a t no c le arl y e sta bli sh e d c on sti tut ion a lly protec ted rig ht exi sted, as “[n]o reasonable prison officia l would have known by May 12, 2005, that any alleg ed ac t o r o m i ssion set forth in this action would impinge on a fede rally protec ted rig ht.” Def endants a lso filed a response t o Clark’s mot ion for summ ary judgme nt, which incorporated the

argume nts fr om the ir ow n moti on . I n ad dit ion , the de fe nd ants ’ re sp on se a lle g e d th a t Cla rk ’s c la im that defe ndants failed to timely answe r his r equest for a dmissions was incor rec t beca use the c ourt sta y e d d isc ov e ry

un le ss re la te d to the iss ue of qu a lif ie d im mun ity . In r e sp on se to d e fe nd a nts ’ arguments, Clark clar ified that he w as not arguing that he had a fede rally protec ted rig ht to be fre e from false conduct repor

ts or to f ile persona l-proper

ty claims. I nstead, Clark stated t h at h e was simply arguing that the filing of a fa lse re p o rt i n t his case c onstitut ed re taliation, and that once inm a te s are a llo we d to fi le state pr opert y cla ims and /or c omp la int s a

nd g ri e va nc e s, it i s unconstitutional to retaliate ag ainst them for doing so. I n addition, Clark argued that he w as not trying to dictate how to conduct prison business when spe aking with the ODRC official, but, instead, that he wa s merely

respondingto the officia l’s inquiry reg ardingthe conditions at the prison. The mag istrate judge , in his second I nterim Report and Rec ommendation, sug g ested that the district c ourt deny Clark’s motion, g rant defe ndants’ motion in part, and deny defe ndants’ motion in p art . In p art ic ula

r, the ma g istrate jud g e re c omm end e d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nt d e fe nd a nts ’ mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt on qua lif

ie d immunit

y “ ins of ar a s it re la te s to a lle g e d a c ts t a ke n inNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 8 - reta liation for Plaintiff’s pursuit of: an infor mal g rieva

nce that he voiced to [ OD R C] chief leg al counsel d u ri n g his tour of OSP; appeals from his cr iminal conviction; or other g rieva nces upon wh ic h Pl a int if

f w a s atte mpt ingto e xha

us t his a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s, ” and “ ins of ar a s it re la te s to [C lark’s] participation in a fede ral class action suit a g ainst OSP .

. . and De fenda nt J ohnson’s alleg ed p ar t i ci p at i o ni na f

al s e c o n d u ct re p o rt d at edJ u n e 2 , 2 0 0 5

. ” H o we v er , t h e m agi s t ra t e j u d ge

re c omm e nd e d that the dis tr ic t c ourt de ny de fe nd ants ’ mot ion “ ins of ar a s it relat es t o [Clar

k’ s] participation in a fede ral c lass action suit ag ainst OSP . . . and De fe n d an t J am es’ a lleg ed participation in a false c onduct re port dated Ma y 12, 2005; Defe n d a

nt Jo h n s o n ’ s a ll e g e d participation in a fa lse c on du c t re po rt date d May 5, 20 05 ; and

De fe nd ant Jame s[’ ] al le g e d p art ic ipatio n in a fa lse

c on du c t r e po rt

date d Jun e 2, 20 05 .” Th is r e c omm e nd a tio n h ing e d la rg e ly on de fe nd ants ’ f

a ilure to file a timely

response to Clark ’s re q u es t s for a dmissions , which led the ma g istrate judg e to dee m those alleg ations ad m i t t ed pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 36. Ac cording ly , the mag istrate judg e found that “the body of evide nce a

vailable f or ruling upon the instant motion for summary judgme nt includes Plaintiff’s Dec laration, his reque sts for admissions , . . . and the c onduct repor ts from May

5, 2005, May

12, 2005, and June 2, 2005, which Def endants e x plicitly

admit are authentic.” Af te r t he ma g istrate jud g e iss ue d h is r ecommen datio n, the de fe nd ants mov e d f or le a ve to wi thd ra w a nd a me nd the ir re sp on se s to the re qu e st f or a dmi ssi on s p ur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ ilNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Th is p ro vis ion s st a te s, 2 A m a tt e r a d mi tt e d u n d e r th is r u le is c o n c lu s iv e ly e s ta

b li s h e d u n le s s th e c ourt, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended. Subject to Rule 16(e), the cour t may permit withdrawa l and a

me n d me nt if it would promote the prese ntation of the mer its of the action and if the court is not persua ded that it would prejudice the reque sting pa

rty in maintaining or

defe nding the action on the merits. An admission un de r thi s ru le is no t an a dmi ssi on fo r any oth e r purp os e and c ann ot be us e d a g a ins t t h e p ar t y i nan y o t h er p ro ce ed i n g. - 9 - Procedur e 36(b)

. Def

endants first arg ued that Clark’ s reque st for admissions exceeded the scope 2 of discovery , and, thus, no a nswers w ere neede d and no re quests should have be en dee med admitted. Alternatively , defe ndants claimed t h at the cour t should permit any

untimely response s to be withdrawn and amende d as t he dis puted admis sions neg ated the defe nse of qua lified immunit y on fac tual g rounds, prec luding the case from being hear d on the merits, and Clark would not be injure d in his abilit y

to develop his ca se or dispute de fenda nts’ leg al ar g uments if these admissi ons were wi thd ra wn . In r e sp on se to thi s mo tio n, Cla rk no te d th a t th e ma g istra

te jud g e fo un d d e fe nd a nts ’ argument that Clark’s re quest exceeded t h e scope of discove ry to be without merit. I n addition, Cla rk argued th at the d istri c t c ourt ha s b ro a d d isc re tio n in

de te rm ini ngwh e the r t o g ra nt l e a ve to wi thd ra w a nd a me nd a dmi ssi on s und e r R

ule 36 (b ), and

tha t it sh ou ld n ot exe rc ise that di sc re tio n in this case be cause def

en d an t s p u rposefully

chose not to re spond to this request in relianc e on a spurious leg al theory . Finally , Clark contende d that defe ndants failed to identify “which of [t heir] admissions that they

wish to withdraw or a

mend and how it would su b s erve the merits,” a nd that Clark would be pr ejudiced by the g ranting of this motion as it would require the re -openingofNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 10 - discovery on the i ssue of qualified im munity , amendment of the motions for summary judgme nt, and

s an c t i o n s a g a i n s tt h e d e f

e n d an t s f o r d e l ay. I n Dec ember

2008, the district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order g ranting defe ndants’ motion for leave to w ithdraw their response to the reque st for admissions, and g ranting defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt on the issue of qualified immunity . I n reg ard to the mot ion fo r l e a ve to w ith dr aw, the dis tr ic t c ourt fr a me d th e de fe nd ants ’ r e qu e st a s f oll ow s: [Defenda nts] argue that the reque sts we nt bey ond the per missibl e scope of discover y on qualified im munity

. They seek leave to withdraw the May 7th responses or , in the alternative, for an order that, even if the dee med admissions are not withdra wn, they are not releva

nt to the issue of qualified immunity and, ther efor e, have no bear ing on the ana ly sis for the motions for summary judgme nt. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e xpla ine d th a t it

ha d “ c on sid e ra

ble dis c re tio n” in decid ingwh e the r t o g ra nt t his motion, but t h at it saw “no c onnection to the issue of qua lified immunit y ” whe n revie wing the

va ri ou s r e qu e sts fo r a dmi ssi on s. Ac c or din g ly , the c ourt fe lt that “ [t]he se re qu e sts g o to the me ri ts of the underlying claims, matters which are not y et befor e the court,” and re asoned that “[a]l though, strictly speaking , defe ndants probably should ha ve responde d by making timely objections, the fa ct is, these discover

y reque st s s hould not have bee n made be cause discovery was stay ed as to the

me ri ts. ” Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso fo un d that the re wo uld be no pr e jud ic e to Cla

rk in g ra nting th is motion, as Clark had not show n the kind of “spec ial difficulties” r equire d for a showing of pre

judice. Reg arding defe ndants’ mot ion for summary judgme nt, the district court stresse d its previous § 1 91 5( e ) r

uli ng , w hic h c on str

ue d Cla rk s’ c omp la int a s “ a lle g inga tw o- pr on g e d r e ta liatio n c la im:No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 11 - perta ining to plaintiff’ s persona l property dispute and pertaining to his placement in seg reg ation.” The district cour

t expl ained, Alt h o u gh t h e co mplaint makes mention of the fa ct that plaintiff wa s a par ty to the fe de r a l c l a s s a c t i o n l aw s u i t , i t n e v e r a l l e g e s t h a t Jo h n s o n an d Jam e s , t h e on ly rema ining de fenda

nts, had any knowledg e of his pa rticipation in that liti g ation and , mor e imp or

tantl y , th e c omp lai nt n e ve r a lle g e s any ne xus b e tw e e n th e de fe nd ants ’ adver se behavior (i.e., the alleg ed false conduct repor ts) and his pa

rticipation in prior lit ig a tio n. P lai nl y put, t

he c omp la int

do e s n ot a lle g e that th e thr e e a lle g e dly fa lse conduct r eports wer e motivated by reta liation f or plaintiff’s par

ticipation in the nowc los e d f e de ra l c la ss a c tio n la

ws uit

. I nstead, a ccor d i n g t o t h e d i strict court, Clark a lleg ed that the Ma y 12, 2005 conduct r eport wa s motivated by

Clark’s complaints to the ODRC of ficial, Clark implied that the May 5, 2005 conduct repor t, if any thing, was motivated by these same complaints, and Clark fa iled to assert that the June 5, 2005 conduct r eport wa s done in reta liation for participating in the class action suit. F inally , the distric t c o u rt a

p p e ar e d to im

p ly th a t s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t w o u ld b e a

p p r o p r iate e v e n if it

had not g ra nte d d e fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to w ith dr aw the ir

re sp on se s to a dmi ssi on s, wh e n n oti ngthat “ eve n if there wer e an outrig ht admission that J ames e ntrappe d Plaintiff into a disciplinary violation, there is nothing to establish that it was done in reta liation for participating in a class action lawsuit.” Clark

no w a pp e a ls the se ru lin g s. II. As a pr e lim ina

ry ma tte r, Cla

rk a lle g e s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld h a ve c on sid e re d b oth his orig inal and ame nded complaints in making its ruling s, but Clark did not clearly incorporate the fo rm e r w ithhis fi lin g of the la tte r. Whe n a ple a din g is a

me nd e d p ur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e 15(a), the amende d pleading superse des t he original pleading , i.e., “the orig inal pleadingNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 12 - no lon g e r pe rf

or ms any fu nc tio n in the c a se and any su bs e qu e nt mot ion ma de by an op po sin g pa rt y should b e direc ted at the amended plea ding,” 6 Charles Ala n Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fede ral Prac tic e an d P ro c e du re § 1 4 7 6 ( 3 d e d

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( f

o o t n o t e omi tte d) ; see als o Pa rk s v . F e d. Ex pr ess Corp. , 1 F . App ’x 27 3, 27 7 (6 th Cir

. 20 01 ). I f, ho we ve r, the pa rt y su bmi tti ngthe ple a din g c le a rl y int e nd e d the la tte r p le a din g to s up ple me nt, rathe r t ha n s up e rs e de , th e or ig ina l pl e a din g , s ome or a ll of the orig inal pleadingcan be incorporated in the amende d pleading

. See Wright & Miller, su pr a ;

se e als o Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am. , No. 4:0 6- CV -1 67 2, 20 07 WL 14 67 05 8, a t *1 n.2 ( N. D. Oh io May 16 , 2 00 7) . Cl ark did

no t c le arl y

ind ic a te that he int e nd e d h is a me nd e d p le a din g to s up ple me nt,

rathe r t ha n s up e rs e de , his or ig ina l pl e a din g . A c c or din g ly , it wa s a pp ro pr ia te fo r t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

to rely solely on the amended pl eading in making its ruling s. Howeve r, eve n if the district court e rre d in this reg ard, the err or would not aff ect the outc ome of this case as Clark’s or igina l complaint does not provide any

additional information suffic ient to cure the def iciencie s in Clark’s claims. III . Be cause Clark fa iled to establish that the underlying claim he was alleg edly reta liated for ha d any merit—one of the elements re quired to prove a F irst Amendm en t retaliation claim—no

c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n o c c ur re d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s th e re fo re wa

rr ante d in fi nd ingde fe nd a nts immune from suit and, thus, in gr anting summary judgme nt on this issue in their favor . Clark alleg es that defe n d a n ts ar e n o t e n ti tl e d to qu a li f ie d im mu n it y b e c a u s e th e y v io late d h is F ir s t A me n d ment rig hts when they

reta liated ag ainst him after he complained to a n ODRC official visiting the prisonNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s qu a lif

ie d im mun ity

ru lin g wa s limit e d to this part ic ula r r e ta liatio n c la im 3 only . Clark’s other

reta liation claims—reg ardingClark’s participation in a cla ss action lawsuit and his filing of c omplaints and g rieva nces a g ainst OSP st aff

—we re d i s m i s s ed pursua nt to § 1915(e) and, thus, wer e not prope rly befor e the district cour

t on motion for summary

judgme nt. The district court did, howe ver, discuss Clark’ s claim of re taliation for his involvement in a class action suit and for filing other complaints and g rieva nces in its Memorandum Opinion a nd Orde r in order

to respond to the mag istrate judg e’s incor poration of these claims in his I nterim Report and Rec ommendation.

- 13 - about the g ener al conditions of the prison. I n order to demonstrate a First Amendme nt retaliation 3

c la im, Cla

rk ne e de d to pr ov e a mon g oth e r t hi ngs that he e ng a g e d in pr ote c te d c on du c t in

the fi rs t place

. Siggers-El v. Barlow , 4 1 2 F. 3 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 393 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (en ba nc))

. Cla rk fa ile d to s ho w t

hat he wa s e ng a g e d in

pr ote c te d c on du c t w he n th e de fe nd ants a lle g e dly

re ta liate d agai ns t hi m. A lth ou g h “ [a]n inm a te ha s an und isp ute d F ir st A me ndme nt r ig ht t o f ile g rieva nces a g ainst prison officia ls on hi s o wn behalf , . . . [t ]hi s rig ht is protected . . . only if the g rieva nces a re not fr ivolous.” Herron v. Harrison , 203 F.3d 410, 415 ( 6th Cir. 2000). I n other words, an inmate ’s pursuit of g rieva nces ag ainst prison officia ls can c onstitut e prote cted c onduct for purposes of a

reta liation claim, but “only to the extent that the underlying c laims ha[ve] merit.” Id. Summary judg me nt w a s proper

for Clark’ s retaliation cla im based on the c omplaints he made about OSP officials to an OD RC official bec ause the re w as no basi s s h o wn for the underlying complaint. Thoug h Clark continually asser ts that he complained to the O DRC official in an attempt to ga in acc ess to his leg al prope rty , and, by doing so, g ain ac cess to the courts, he fails to prese nt any

e vid ence re g ard ingthe le g iti ma c y of his c omp la int s r e g ard inghis le g a l pr op e rt y or re g ard inghis de nia l of a c c e ss t o c ourt s. I n h is a me nd e d c omp la int , Cl ark a lle g e s o nly

that he “ wa s sp e a kin g toNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 14 - the c hie f l e g a l c ouns e l f

or the [OD RC] a

bo ut [his ] co nf

isc a te d le g a l pr op e rt

y wh e n th e UM A ( Un it Mana g e me nt A dmi nis tr a tor ) i nte rj e c te d h ims e lf in t he c on ve rs a tio n, he di dn ’t lik e [Clark ’s ] complaints about [the UMA’s] job performanc e, so [the UMA] had [ Clark] put i n t h e h o l e for no

rea son.” F urther, w hen moving for summary judgme nt, Clark mere ly

stated, Then whe n defe ndant J ames wa s telling [ the ODRC officia l] that he and othe r staff ha d b e e n tr

y ingto h e lp p la int if

f w ithhis pr op e rt

y iss ue and pla int if

f po int e d o ut t o [t he ODRC offic ial] t hat def endant James hadn’t e ven answere d the complaint on the iss ue that he ha d in str

uc te d pla int if

f to se nd , J a me s ord e re d pla int if f to g o to his c e ll for no r eason ( even thoug h plaintiff hadn’ t eaten lunc h y et). Neither filin g demonstrates that Clark’s complaints about the de fenda nts’ job perfor

mance wer e leg itim at e, nor that his complaints about the defenda nts failing to a

nswer his pre vious gr ievanc es

wer e not frivolous. Thus, Clark failed to show that he wa s eng ag ed in protec ted conduc t when the de fe nd ants a c te d a dv e rs e ly a g a ins t hi m. Wi tho ut s uc h a sh owi ng , Cl ark

c ann ot m a ke ou t a

c on sti tut ion a l viol a tio n, and de fe nd ants are e nti tle d to qua lif ie d immunit

y on thi s r e ta liatio n c la im. Clark re lies on Sig

g e r s - E l v . Barlow to su

pp or t hi s argume nt f

or re ve rs a l, b ut t

hat c a se is distinguishable. Siggers-El inv olv e d a

n inma te ’s su it a g a ins t a pr iso n o ff

ic ia l f or a lle g e dly transfe rringthe inmate in retaliation for the inmate’ s complaining to the officia l’s supervisors that the offic ial had not authorized disbursements fr om the prisoner’ s acc ount to pay his lawy er. 412 F.3d at 696. The def

endant in Siggers-El

moved for summar

y judgme nt o n t h e b as i s o f qualified immunit y and the d i s t ri ct co urt denied this motion. Id. On appe al, this court upheld the district court’s de nial despite the de fenda nt’s arguments that Sigg ers- El failed to de monstrate that he wa s eng ag ed in pr otected conduct or that he suff ere d an adve rse a ction. Id. at 699-702. In particula r, theNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

I n rea ching this decision, we do not re ly on the war den’s a

rg ument that “Clark’ s conduct wa s 4 imp ro pe r be c a

us e it wa s no t c on sis te nt wi th his sta tus a s an inm a te and no t c on sis te nt w ithle g iti ma te penolog ical objec tives.” - 15 - de fe nd ant a

rgue d “ that a lth ou g h a

pr iso ne r h a s a ri g ht t o f

ile no n- fr ivo lou s la

ws uit s a nd g ri e va nc e s, a prisoner

may not, as the Plaintiff did, orally complain to an o ff

i ce r’s superior re g ardingthe office r’s c onduct,” be cause that “is ‘inconsistent with [pl aintiff’s] statu s as a prisoner or with the leg itimate penolog ical objec tives of the cor rec tions s y s tem.’” Id. at 699 (a lteration in orig inal). Ho we ve r, thi s c ourt

did no t a c c e pt t

hat th e de fe nd ant a c c ur a te ly c ha ra c te ri zed Sig g e rs -E l’ s c on du c t,

a s th e c on du c t w a s n ot m e re ly g oin g ov e r d e fe nd ant’ s he a d, bu t rathe r wa s “ pa rt of [Sig g e rs -E l’ s] attempt to a cce ss the courts,” which prisoners have a constitutional rig ht to do. Id. Moreove r, we explained tha t the re cord did not support the de fenda nt’s contention that Sigg ers- El’s ac tions

c on fl ic te d w ithle g iti ma te pe no log ic a l ob je c tiv e s, a s th e de fe nd ant a dmi tte d th a t S iggers-El did nothing wr ong and the defenda nt’s supervisors legitimated S igg ers- El’s complaints by responding to them. Id. at 700-01. Sig g e rs -E l di d n ot suf

fe r fr om t he same de fi c ie nc y

in h is a rgume nt a s Cl ark

do e s in thi s c a se beca use t he prison super

visors, and eve n the def

endant himself, leg itimated Sigg ers- El’s informal complaints. The proble m with Cl ark’ s case is not that his complaint was infor mally made, but that it has not been shown to have had any merit. Howeve r, unl ike t he district cour t in Cl ark’ s case , the dis tr ic t c ourt

in S ig g e rs -E l’ s ca se did

no t a dd re ss t he me ri ts o f h is c omp la int , a nd the de fe nd a nt d id not contest that on appe al. Be cause Clark did not establish any constitutional violation, the district

c ourt c or re c tly g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f d e fe nd ants
. 4No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

dif fe re nti a te d b etw een Cl ark ’s re ta liatio n c la ims ba se d o n th e a dv e rs e 5 a c t i o n s t a k e n

— c o n f i s c a t i o no f

C l ar k ’ s p e r s o n a l an d

l e g a l p r o p e rt y , an d

C l ar k ’ s p l a c e m e n tin seg reg ation. Howeve r, t his opinion differ entiates between Clark’s reta liation claims based on the protec ted conduc t alleg ed—Clark’ s p ar t i ci p ation in a class a ction lawsuit and his filing of other complaints and g rieva

nces, a nd Clark ’s complaint to an ODRC officia l. For c larification, the

- 16 - IV. Cla rk ’s re ma ini ngc la ims we re dis mis se d e arl y in the pr oc e e din g s fo r fa ilure to s ta te a c la im. Unlike the re taliation claim discussed above, these dismiss als wer e pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e ) and ca n o nly

be upheld if the claim is not even plausible on its fac e. See B ell Atlantic Corp. v. Twom bly , 5 50 U. S. 544 , 57 0 (20 07 ). Un de r t hat st and ard , Cl ark

a de qu a te ly

ple a de d a

F ir st Amendment re taliation claim ag ainst the defe ndants based on his pa rticipati o n i n a cla ss action lawsuit, but he did not a d eq u at ely plead a denial-of -ac cess- to-courts c laim or an e qual-prote ction claim. This court reviews de novo the di strict court’s dismi ssal of a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e ). Thomas v . Eby , 4 81 F .3 d 4 34 , 4 37 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . M or e ov e r, in r e vie wi ngCla rk ’s ple a din g s, thi s

c ourt mus t a lso ke e p in

min d th e re la xed

sta nd ards whe n revie wi ngple a din g s f ile d b y pr o s e lit ig ants ; sp e c if

ic a lly , th is c ourt “ may no t up ho ld t he dis mis sa l of

su c h a ple a din g ‘s imp ly

be c a us e [we] find[ ] t he plaintiff’ s alleg ations unlikely ’” Id. (a l t er at i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Denton v. Hernande z , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). A. Clark ade quately

pleade d a First Amendment retaliation claim aga inst the defendants base d on his participation in a class action lawsuit and the filing of other c omplaints and g rieva nces, w hich alleg edly led to the conf

iscation o f h i s p ersonal and leg al prope rty
. “To state a claim alleg ing 5No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

reta liation claim reg ardingClark’s par ticipation in a class ac ti o n lawsuit and his filing of other c omp la int s and

g ri e va nc e s a lso a lle g e s tha t his pe rs on a l and le g a l pro pe rt y we re c on fi sc a te d b e c a

us e of these a ctions. Meanwhile, the reta liation claim reg arding Clark’s complaint to an ODRC official a lso a lle g e s th a t he wa s p la c e d in se g re g a tio n b e c a

us e of his a c tio ns . - 17 - reta liation for exercising a constit utional rig ht, a plaintiff must show that (1) he eng ag ed in protec ted conduct; (2) that defe ndant t ook an adverse a ction ag ainst him . . .; and (3) that the a dverse action was take n (at lea st in part) bec ause of t h e p ro tected c onduct.” Id. at4 4 0 (c i t i n g Thaddeus-X , 175 F.3d at 394). Clark cle arly p l ea d ed t h e first e lement. We have a lrea dy noted that the filing of g rieva nces a g ainst OSP officials constitutes protecte d conduct as long a s the g rieva nce is not frivolous, and ther e is no duty to plead that a g rieva nce is not fr ivolous in order to survive dismissal at the plea ding sta g e. See id. As for the second e lement, “[i] n order to deter mine whether

actions of lesse r seve rity

[t han

a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n] me ri t be ingde e me d ‘ a dv e rs e ’ f or purp os e s o f a re ta liatio n c la im, ” thi s

c ourt mus t a sk wh e the r t he “ a dv e rs e a c tio n is on e tha t w ou ld ‘ de te r a

pe rs on of or din ary fi rm ne ss’ from the e x erc ise of the r ight at stake.” Thaddeus-X , 1 7 5 F. 3 d at 3 9 6 (q u o t i n g Ba rt v . Te lfo rd , 677 F.2d 622, 625 ( 7th Cir. 1982)). “[W ]hi le cer tain threats or deprivations a re so de minimi s that they do no t r ise to the le ve l of be ing c on sti tut ion a l vio la tio ns , thi s thr e sh old is int e nd e d to w e e d o ut o nly inc on se qu e nti a l a c tio ns , a nd is not a me ans wh e re by so le ly e g re g iou s re ta liator y a c ts a re a llo we d to proce ed past summary

judgme nt.” Id. at 398. I n Bell v. J ohnson , 308 F .3 d 5 94 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) , th is

c ourt fo un d th a t e vid e nc e sh ow ingtha t de fe nd ants le ft

pla int if f’ s c e ll i n d isa

rr ay , co nfi scat ed h is leg al pape rs without returningthem , and st ole his medical diet snac ks was suff icient to meetNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

I n making this refe renc e to other c ircuits, Be ll c ite d th e fo llo wi ngc a se s: 6 Penrod v. Zavaras , 94 F.3d 1399, 1404 ( 10th Cir. 1996) (re versingg rant of summar y jud g me nt t o d e fe nd ants on inm a te ’s c la im that g uards c on du c te d h ara ssi ngc e ll sear ches, seized leg al m ater ials, ref used t o provide inmate w ith hy g iene items, and tr ans fe rr e d inma t e t o s e gr e g a t i o n i n re ta liatio n f

or su it a g a ins t pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls) ; Gree n v. Johnson , 977 F. 2 d 1 383, 1389-91 (10th Cir. 1992) (holdingthat inmate’s a lle g a tio n th a t g ua

rd s d e str oy e d h is l e g a l mate ri a ls i n r e ta liatio n fo r his fi lin g of su its and g ri e va nc e s st a te d a

c og niza ble F ir s t A m e ndme nt c la im) ; W

right v. Newsome , 795 F.2d 9 64 , 9 68 (1 1th

Cir . 1 98 6) (s a me ); Hall v. Sutton , 7 5 5 F

. 2 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 7

- 8 8 ( 11 th Cir . 1 98 5) (h old ingthat in ma te a lle ged su ff ic ie nt f a c ts t o s ta te a

c la im o f F ir st Am e ndme nt r e ta liatio n b a se d u po n th e a lle g e d c on fi sc a tio n o f h is t enn is sh oe s in reta liation for a pr ior lawsuit ag ainst prison officia ls). Be ll , 308 F.3d at 604. - 18 - plaintiff’s burde n under the adver se ac tion prong of the re taliation claim. Id. a t 60 5. F ur the r, thi s court a cknowledg ed that “a n u m b er o f case s from other c ircuits have he ld that confiscating a n inmate’s lega l paper s and other proper ty constitutes sufficient injury to support a Fir st Amendment reta liation claim,” id. a t 604, and that “ we have pr e vio us ly su g g e ste d in

dic ta that a re ta liator y c e ll 6

sear ch and se izure of an inmate’ s leg al documents s at i s fi es t h e adve rse a ction prong of the Thaddeus-X

t est,” id. (c i t i n g W

alk e r v . B ain , 257 F.3d 660, 664 ( 6th Cir. 2001)). Thoug h Be ll involved the district court’s g rant of judg ment as a matter of law ag ainst a prisoner -plaintiff c laiming he wa s re ta liate d ag a ins t, its an a ly sis is ins tr uc tiv e in d e mon str a tin g wh a t c an c on sti tut e an a dv e rs e action. B eca

use depr ivation of persona l and leg al prope rty can be considere d an adverse a ction, C l a r k a d e qu a t e l y p l e a d e d f

a c t s an d a l l e g a t i o n s s u f

f i c i e n t t o e s t a

b l i s h t h e s e c o n d e l e me nt o f t his

re ta liatio n c la im.No. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Th is doe s not me an tha t Clar k wou ld s ur

viv e a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt b y

de fe nd a nts 7 on this claim, but the district court did not rule upon this particula r retaliation claim at the summary judgme nt stag e. - 19 - As for the third element,“ [b] eca use t he question is whether the adve rse a ction was take n (at least in part) beca

use of the pr otected con duct, the ca usation inquiry

cente rs on the def

endant’ s motive.” Thomas , 481 F.3d at 441. I t cannot be sa id that Cl ark has failed to state a ny claim for reta liation upon which relief may be gra nted, especially when c onsidering the less string ent pleading require ments for pro se litiga nts. I n his complaint, Clark alleg es that his constitutional rights we re violated “both for

[hi s] participation and testimony in fede ral court in a class action ag ainst OSP, and for [his] complaints ag ainst some of them i ndividually .” C lark fur ther c laims that the “2.4 cubic fee t

and pa c k- up pr oc e dure s” we re ina de qu a te , a nd tha t a pp lic a tio n o f t

he m to hi m violate d h is F ir st Am e ndme nt r ig hts “ be c a

us e the se a d

v e r s e a c t i o n s w e r e t a

ke n a g a ins t [hi m] f

or e xer c isi ng[his ] ri g hts to acc ess the cour

ts and filing c omplaints and gri evances.” Acc ording to these alleg ations, Clark might be a

ble to put forth evidenc e conne cting these off icer s’ ac tions to C lark’s involv em en t in a

c la ss a c tio n la

ws uit , e nti tli ngCla

rk to r e lie f f

or re ta liatio n. Ev e n if

it i s un like ly

tha t Cla rk wi ll prove these facts, that does not make dismissal appropr iate. See id. a t 43 7. Thus , Cl ark a de qu a te ly pleade d reta l i at i o n , throug h the conf iscation of his proper

ty , for his involvement in a c lass action laws uit and his fi lin g of

oth e r c omp la int s a

nd g ri e va nc e s. 7 B. Be cause Clark did not adequately plead a denial-of -ac cess- to-courts claim, the district court

was c orre ct in dismiss ing this cla im pursuant to § 1915(e). T houg h prisoners do have aNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 20 - constitutional right to meaning ful acc ess to the cour ts, which is gr ounded in many source s, in order to a dequate ly state a c laim for a de nial of ac cess to cour ts, a prisoner must set for

th actual pr ejudice to pending litigation that cha lleng es hi s conviction or c onditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351-55 (1996). In addition, Le wis requi re s t h at the prisoner demonstrate that the underlying claim alleg edly prejudice d is not frivolous. Hadix v. J ohnson , 1 82 F .3 d 4 00 , 4 05 -0 6 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 9) ; se e als o Chr istop he r v . H ar bu ry , 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (noting t hat “the underlying

c a us e of a c tio n, wh e the r an tic ipate d or los t, is ane le me nt t hat mu st b e de sc ri be d in

the c omp la int , just as m uch as alleg ations must descr ibe the off icial ac ts frustrating the litigation”) . “Examples of

a c tua l pr e jud ic e to p e nd ing or c on te mpl a te d li tig a tio n in c lud e ha vin g a c a se dis mis se d, be ingun a ble to f ile a complaint, and missing a cour t-imposed deadline.” Harbin-Bey v. Rutter , 420 F.3d 571, 578 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g J

ac k so n v . G ill , 92 F. App’ x 171, 173 (6th Cir. 2004)). Clark fa iled to adequately pl ea d any

specific prejudice to a non-fr ivolous claim that he

su ff e re d b e c a us e of the de fe nd ants ’ a lle g e d d e nia l of a c c e ss t o c ourts. I n h is a me nd e d c omp la int , Cla rk a sse rt e d o nly

that “ the c on fi sc a tio n o f [h is] le g a l w or k h a [d] pr e ve nte d [hi m] fr om fi lin g su it for previous acts .
. . and ha[ d] preve nted [him ] from [ fig hting] [hi s] criminal case f or the pa st two y e ars .” Cla

rk did no t no te any

sp e c if ic c la ims that he int e nd e d to fi le or any sp e c if ic a pp e a ls t o h is

c ri min a l c a se that he int e nd e d to a lle g e . Ac c or din g ly , h e a lso fa ile d to de sc ri be his un de rl y ingc la ims

or to a sse rt the ir no n- fr ivo lity . M or e ov e r, Cla rk did no t e ve n a lle g e any a c tua l inj ur y be c a us e of thi s denial of a cce ss to the courts in his or igina l c omplaint—that is, rea ding the two complaints toge therNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

I n his orig inal complaint, Clark m ere ly states, “The taking of m y leg al property has ca used 8 me to not be able to f

ight my criminal convic tion for t he past two y ear s, preve nted me fr om being a ble to [pur su e ] oth e r c ivi l r ig hts vio la tio ns , a nd pr e ve nte d [me ] fr om f

ull y pa rt ic ipatin g in my curr ent ac tion (

Austin v. W

illiams ).” I n r e g ard to h is a c c e ss- to- c ourt s c la im, Cla rk ’s mot ion to al te r or

a me nd state d a s f

oll ow s: 9 Ido no t be lie ve tho ug h I

a m r e qu ir e d to pr e se nt a

nd pr ov e a ll of the g ro un ds Iwo uld have r aised in [my

proposed a ctions] i n my compl aint. Icouldn’t do that any way without the court g rantingmy preliminary

injunction request t o ac ce ss my leg al materia ls, beca

use that’s the point, I

can’ t even r emember

some of my

g rounds wi tho ut my

c on fi sc a te d p ro pe rt

y . But I can re la te so me of the m and the a c tio ns in which I [pl anned] to raise them. There wer e civil rights actions for the Warden a

nd a Unit Mana g er ma

nipulating my s ec u rity

and leve l review s in retaliation for c omm e nts I made a

bo ut t he War de n o n th e sta

nd and fo r t e sti fy

ingin g e ne ra l in Austin v. W

ilkinson . There was a

nother c ivil rig hts action for Sgt. Johnst on order ing other off icer s to write conduc t reports on me w hen it’s re ally just her wantingto be the he ari ng

of fi c e r o n h e r o wn

c on du c t r e po rt s in

re ta liatio n f

or me fi lin g c omp la int s and g rieva

nces a g ainst her. As for my criminal case I [pl anned] to file a 26(b) Application for r eopening my appea l due to ineffe ctive assist ance of appellate counsel. And Icould show g ood cause why

it wasn’t filed in 90 day s. Kee p in mind that, among other thing s, Iwas on ly 15 wh e n I wa s trie d as an a du lt, and I wa s une du c a te d an d indi g e nt. Iwa s a lso working on my fede ral Habe as Corpus for which I can make a strong sho wi n g of a c tua l inno c e nc e wh i c h

a l low s a dis tr ic t c ourt

to h e ar g ro un ds wh ic h w ou ld o the rw ise be bar red. - 21 - has no impact on this dismiss al. Clark re lies upon clar ifications he made within his m otion to alter 8

or ame nd the district court’s § 1915(e) ruling to support his contention that he r eally did plead ac tual inj ur y . Th is i nf

or ma tio n w a s n ot s ub mit te d, ho we ve r, un til a ft e r t he dis tr ic t c ourt ent ered its 9 judgme nt dismi ssing Cl ark’ s complaint. Moreove r, eve n these a dditional facts introduce d by Clark in his mot ion to alter or amend fa il to demonstrate the non-f rivolity o f t he under ly ing c laims heNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 22 - e xpla ins or to de sc ri be ho w the c on fi sc a tio n of his le g a l pr op e rt y a ff e c te d his a

bil ity to p ur su e the se actions. The district cour

t’s dismiss al of C l ar k’s denial- of-a cce ss-to-cour ts claim was appr opriate,

e ve n w he n r e vie wi ngit i n th e c on tex t of th e rela xed ple a din g re qu ir e me nts a ff or de d to pr o s e litigants. In Marshall v. Knight , the Seventh Circuit explained that “[t] he re quirement that prisone rs making acc ess-to-c ourts claims alleg e spec ific pre judice should not be under s t o o d as an one rous fac t-pleadingburden,” 445 F.3d 965, 968 ( 7th Cir. 2006), but the district c ourt did not require such “oner ous fac t-pleading ” in this ca se. More over, Ma rsh all also ac knowledg es that “notice pleading requires p l ai n t i ffs to ‘make spec ific alleg ations as to the pre judice suff

ere d beca use of the defe ndants’ alleg ed conduc t.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Or t loff v. United States , 335 F.3d 652, 656 ( 7th Cir. 2003)). Thoug h the pleading standard f or pro se litigants is liberal, it is not without i ts lim its, and does not “abr og ate ba sic pleadingessentials in pro se suits.” W e lls v . B ro wn , 89 1 F .2 d 59 1, 59 4 ( 6th Cir. 1989) (citing, am o n g o t h er case s, Merritt v. Faulkne r , 697 F.2d 761 ( 7th Cir. 1983), for the proposition that the “duty to be less stringe nt w ith pr o se complaint does not requir e cour t to conjure up [unpl eade d] allegations”). Examini ng the fa cts and allegations as presente d by Clark, the district

c ourt ha d a ba sis fo r d e te rm ini ngtha t it wa s una ble to e ve n in fe r a

de nia l- of -a c c e ss- to- c ourt s c la im. Thus , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t e rr in d ism iss ingthi s c la im. Cla rk a lso c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa ilure to a dd re ss h is a dd iti on a l a c c e ss-to-c ourt s claim, which is base d on his contention that the 2.4 p ac k -u p p olicy itself has a c hilling ef

fec t on prisoner litig ation, but Clark also failed to a dequate ly plead this claim. Rega rding this claim, Clark’sNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Cla rk ’s or ig ina l c omp la int

did no t e ve n me nti on

thi s a dd iti on a l a c c e ss- to- c ourt s c la im. 10 Cla rk c ite s Turner v. Safley , 4 82 U. S. 7 8 (19 87 ), to s up po rt thi s a dd iti on a l a c c e ss- to- c ourt s 11 claim. Clark does so in re liance on the Turner fac tors, which assist in determining whether a prison regulation is rea sonably related to le g itimate pe nologic al interests. This court nee d not even r eac h that in qu ir

y , h ow e ve r, a s it is onl y re le va nt onc e we have de te rm ine d tha t a pris on re g ulatio n a c tua lly impinges on inmate s’ constitutional rights, see id. at 89, and Clark f ailed to plead a

ny actua l injury from the e nforc ement of this policy

. I n a dd iti on

to a rguin g that Clar

k fa ile d to sta te a va lid “ c la ss of on e ” e qu a l- pr ote c tio n c la im, 12 t h e d ef en d an t s ch al l en ge t h e ap p l i ca t i o no f t h e “ cl as s o f o n e” t h eo ry i n t h e p ri s o nl i t i gat i o ns et t i n g, beca use “[t] he enf

orce ment of prison proc edura l rules by t heir ve ry nature involves discretionar y de c isi on -m a kin g ba se d o n a va st array of su

bje c tiv e , in div idu a lize d a sse ssm e nts ,” and be c a us e “ re c og nit ion

of a ‘c la ss o f o ne ’ t

he or y in t he pr iso n c on te xt wo uld

su bje c t ne arl y a ll p ri so n o ff

ic ia ls’ decisions to constitutional review in fe dera l court.” The defe ndants rely on Engqu i s t v. Oregon De pa rtm e nt o

f A gr ic ultur e , 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (ref using to apply

the “c lass of one” theory

in the public employ

ment context), in m aking this arg ument, but this court need not addr ess this larg er iss ue be c a

us e Cla rk do e s n ot e ve n f

ulf ill the re qu ir e me nts of

ple a din g a

“ c la ss o f o ne ” c la im. - 23 - amende d complaint stated only that “t h e defenda

nt’s leg al policy

also violates ac cess a

nd Equal pr ote c tio n a s it

re str ic ts tho se inm a te s w ho e ng a g e in l iti g a tio n to on ly be ingallo we d to [pos se ss] ha lf the [am ount] o f p e rs on a l [pr op e rt y ] of tho se wh o [do n’ t] and

a pp e ars to have be e n s pe c if ic a lly de sig ne d to have a

c hil lin g e ff

e c t on inm a te lit ig a tio n. ” Cla

rk fa ile d to ple a d a

ny a c tua l in jur y in 10

re la tio n to thi s add iti on a l den ia l- of -a c c e ss- to- c ourt s c la im. Ac c or din g ly , Cl ark fa ile d to e sta

bli sh 11 any constitutional viol ation in reg ard to the pa ck-up policy itself. C. C l ar k d i d n o t a d e qu a t e l y p l e a d an e qu a l

- p r o t e c t i o n v i o l a t i o nu n d e r a “ c l a s s o f o n e ” t h e o r

y. 12 Clark’s ame nded complaint fa ils to claim tha t he wa s intentionally treated diffe rently

than other simil arly situated prisoners. In order to bring a succ essful claim under a “cla ss of one” theory , oneNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 24 - must alleg e that “she has been intentionally treated di ffe rently from other s simil arly

situated and that there is no rational basis for the differ ence in treatment.” Vill. of W illow brook v. O lech , 5 28 U. S. 56 2, 56 4 ( 20 00 ) (p e r curi a m) . T he e qu a l- pr ote c tio n c la im i n Cl ark ’s a me nd e d c omp la int state s o nly that hi s “ Eq

ua l Pr ote c tio n r ig hts we re vio la te d b e c a us e the se po lic ie s w e re e nf or c e d a g a ins t [hi m]

se le c tiv e ly .” Mo re ov e r, Cla rk ’s or ig ina l c omp la int do e s not ev e n all e g e any e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la ims in its l isting of “ Causes of Action,” nor does it state a ny fac ts that could be used to infe r an a lleg ation that s im il ar ly

s it u a te d p r is o n e r s w e r e tr e a te d

mo r e f a v o r a b ly th anCl ar

k in r e g ar d to p a c k

- up pr oc e dure s. W it ho ut at lea st a su g g e sti on

that ot he r i nmate s at O SP w e re pe rm itt e d to po sse ss pr op e rt y in e xce ss of the po lic y ’s lim it o r t hat O SP of

fi c ia ls e nf or c e d th e pr op e rt

y lim itatio ns wi th the purp os e fu l in te nt o f d isc ri min a tin g a g a ins t Cla rk , Cl ark c ann ot m a ke ou t a

“ c la ss o f o ne ” e qu a lpr ote c tio n c la im. V. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis c re tio na ry ru lin g s a g a ins t Cla

rk thr ou g ho ut t

his c a se did

no t c on sti tut e an abuse of discre tion. Bec ause “ [m ]atters of docket control and conduct of discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court,” this court “will not interfe re with a trial court’s c ontrol of its docket except u p on the clea rest showing that the proc edure s have r esulted in ac tual and substantial pr ejudice to the complaining litigant.” In re Air Crash Disaster , 8 6 F .3 d 4 98 , 5 16 (6 th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g In re Fine Paper Antitrust L itig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 ( 3d Cir. 1982)). Cla rk fi rs t a lle g e s th a t “ the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in a llo wi ngDe fe nd ants to wit hd ra w the ir response s and in failing to c onsider the admitted fac ts on summary judgme nt,” but the district courtNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 25 - did no t a b u s e it s d is c r e ti o nin

p e r mi tt in g th is w it

h dr aw a l. F e d e r a l R

u le o f Ci v il Pr o c e d

u r e 3 6 ( b) permits “withdra

wal or a mendment if it would promote the pre sentation of the mer its of the action and if the co urt is not persuade d that it would prejudice the reque sting pa rty in maintaining or defe nding the action on the m erits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). “The first prongof the test ar ticulated in Rule 36(b) is satisfied ‘whe n upholding the a d m i s s i on would prac tically eliminate any prese ntation on the merits of the ca se.’” Ri le yv . Ku rtz , 194 F .3 d 131 3, 19 99 WL 80 15 60 , at * 3 ( 6th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Hadley v . United States , 4 5 F. 3d 13 45 , 1 34 8 ( 9th

Cir . 1 99 5) ). Th e de fe nd a nts ’

a dmi ssi on s ce rt a inl y c ou ld have a ff e c te d th e me ri ts o f t

he un de rl y ingc la ims , a s w ith ou t w ith dr a wa l, defe n d an t s wo u l d

h av e h ada d i ff

i cu l tt i m e e s t ab l i s h i n g t h ei r d ef en s e t o C l ar k ’s cl ai m s fo r r et ali ation. As fa r a s th e se c on d p ro ngof

the te st, “ ‘t

he pr e jud ic e c on te mpl a te d

. . . is no t si mpl y that th e pa

rt y wh o ini tia lly ob ta ine d the a dmi ssi on wi ll no w have to c on vin c e the fa c tf ind e r o f i ts truth, ’ .

. . [but ] rathe r, ‘r elates to spec ial difficulties a party may fac e ca used by a sudden ne ed to obtain evidenc e upon withdrawa l or amendme nt of an a dmission.’” Ke rry Ste e l, I nc. v. Pa rago n I

nd us . , 106 F.3d 147, 154 (6th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) (citations omitted). Clark wa s not prejudiced by the withdraw al of the defe ndants’ re sponses. He h ad p l en t y of time during the discover y proce ss to introduce other

e v i d e n c e t h a tw o u l d b e p r o p e r f o r t h e c o u rt t o c o n s i d e r i n r e g ar d t o t h e i s s u e o f qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y, but he fa il ed to do s o. Fur ther, if his cla im had survived summary judgme nt, he would have hadNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

Clark argues that the admissions pertained to qualifie d immunit y and thus wer e not outside 13 the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s lim itatio n o n d isc ov e ry . H ow e ve r, be c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its discretion in allowing defe ndants to withdraw their response to Clark’s re quest for a dmissions , we n e e d n o t de te r mi n e w h e th e r

Cl ar k ’ s r e qu e s ts f

e ll w it h in th e s c o p e o f

d is c o v e r y . St il l, w e r e c o g n iz e tha t it is o f

t e nd i f f i c u l tt o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i s s u e s r e l e v an tf o r p u r p o s e s o f a qu a l i f i e d

- i m m u n i ty analy sis from those rele vant to the under ly ing me rits of the ca se. - 26 - a dd iti on a l tim e fo r dis c ov e ry on the un de rl y ing me ri ts of his c la im. Th e re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt did

no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

g ra nti ngde fe nd ants ’ m oti on fo r w ith dr awa l. 13 Finally , the district court did not abuse its discre tion i n ru l i n g on additional pre- trial discretionar

y matters. Clark a sserts that the distri ct cour t abused its discretion in setting aside d e f e n d an ts ’ d e f

a u lt , g r an ti n g d e f

e n d an ts ’ r e qu e s ts f

o r e xte n s io n s o f ti me an d d e n y in g simil ar motions by

Clark, and deny ing Clark’s m otion to file an amende d complaint afte r def endants filed

a sec ond answe r alleging , for the first time, a st atute of lim itations defense . I n reg ard to the se tting

a sid e of de fe nd ants ’ d e fa

ult , the fede ral c ourt s h a ve a str on g pr e fe re nc e fo r t

ri a ls o n th e me ri ts, Sh e pa rd Cla im s S e rv . v . W ill iam Da rra h &As so c s. , 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986), and a district court prope rly

considers thre e fa ctors in determ i n i n g whether to set aside an e ntry

of def ault: 1)

“ [w]he the r t

he pla int if

f w ill be pr e

jud ic e d;” 2) “ [w]he the r t

he de fe nd ant h a s a

me ri tor iou s d e fe ns e ;” and 3) “[w] hether

culpable c onduct of the de fenda nt led to the defa

ult.” Id. at 192. Thoug h Clark challeng es the district c ourt’s finding s as to the third element, “ [w] here the par ty in defa ult satisfies the first two re quirements for relief and moves promptly

to set aside the defa

ult before a judg ment is entere d, the district court should g rant the motion if the party offe rs a cre dible explanation for the delay that does not exhibi t disreg ard f or the judicial proc eeding s.” Id. at 195. Thus, the district cour tNo. 09-3068

Clark v. Johnston

- 27 - did not abuse its discretion in acc epting the def endants’ e ntirely

cre dible explanation for their de lay in responding to Clark’s complaint. As for the denial of Clark’ s reque sts for extension of time and his moti on to file an amende d complaint, Clark has not shown that the district cour t acted outside of i ts “broa d discretion in matters of pretria l manag ement, sche duling a nd docket c ontrol.” Kim ble

v . H os o , 4 39 F .3 d 3 31 , 3 36 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . A c c or din g ly , the dis tr ic t c ou rt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

makin g the se ru lin g s. VI . For t h ese r easons, we AFF I RM the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of defe ndants in r eg ard to Clar k’s claim of reta liation ba sed on his c omplaints to an OD R C o ff i ci al visiti ng the pri son (and a lleg edly causinghim to be placed in se g reg ation), and w e AF FI RM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dismi ssa l of Cla rk ’s de nia l- of

-a c c e ss- to- c ourt s and

e qu a l- pr ote c tio n c la ims

. Howeve r, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Clark’s other c laim of reta liation based on his pa rt ic ipatio n in a c la ss a c tio n laws uit and fi lin gof oth e r c omp la int s and

g ri e va nc e s ( and a lle g e dly l ea d i n g t o t h e c o n fi s ca t i o n o f h i s p er s o n al an d l ega l p ro p er t y ) an d R E M AN D f

o r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent with this opi nion.