## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 1551 J IMM Y D. B RI DGES, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T I M G ILBERT, E TAL ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06- C-544-S

—Jo hn C. Sh abaz, Judg e.
A RG UE D M AY 6, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 4, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. J i m m y Br i dge s, a n inm at e atthe W i sco nsi n Se cure Pro gr am Fa ci l i ty, witnes sed ev ents l eadi ng to the death of a fel l ow inm ate
. A fter he assi ste d the inm ate ’ s m othe r by provi ding an affi davi t in a wrongful death l aw su it a gainst pr i son offi ci al s, Bri dges perce i ved thatcer tain pri son offi ci al s a n d g u ards ( to w hom w e refercol l ecti vel y as “ Defe nd ants” ) had begun to h ar ass hi m . H e fi l ed a pr o se § 1 983 acti on a l l eging tha t2 N o. 07

- 1551 th e Defen dan ts r et al i ated aga i ns t hi m f o r e xe r ci sing hi s F i rs t Am endm en t ri ghts and prevent ed hi m fro m peti ti oni ng the go ver nm ent forr edres s o fgr i evance s. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d th e c om pla i nt f orf ai l ure to s t a t e a c l a i m.

I . B a c kg r o und B ecau se th is app eal i s taken from the d istri ct cou rt ’s d i s mi s s al ofth e c o mpl a i n tf o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, we c on sid er as tru e t h e fa c ts alleg ed in t h e c om p lain t. Wi ndy City M e t al Fa b r i ca t ors & Su pply, Inc. v
. CI T Tec hni ca l Fi n. Servs. , Inc. , 53 6 F
. 3d 663, 66 6 ( 7t h C ir. 20 08)
. Bri dges was ho us ed i n the W isc o ns i n S ec ur e Pr o g r am Fa ci l i tyi n a cel ladj acent to i nm ate Donnie Powe. O n t he ni ght o f M ar ch 14, 20 03, Bri dges y el l ed thr ough a ven t to gr eet Po we. Po we c om pl aine d t o Br i dge s th athi s dr i nk i ngc up c ontai ned a ter ribl e sm el l, and he had b een vom i tin g. A nur se b r o ug htPo we s o m e Ty l en ol an d Tums. The ne xt m or ni ng, Bri dges c al l ed thr ough the ve nt ag ai n to check on Powe. Powe re sponded i n a we ak v oi ce that he w as re ally sic k, h is b od y w as h u r t i n g a ll ove r, an d h e c ou ld n ot eat
. Later, a cor re cti onalo ffi ceras ked Powe w hether h e c o u l d h a n d h is m ea l tra y t o th e o ffice r, bu t P ow e d id not re spond. Se ver aldi ffer ent o ffi cer s r epe at ed the quest i o n o v e r the n e xtfe w h o ur s , b utP o w e ne v e r a ns we r e d. T he o ffi cer s e ventual l y c al l ed another nurse to check on Pow e. A roun d the sa m e tim e, oth er correctiona l officers also cam e to Pow e’ s cel l, and Po w e tol d them h e w as in ter ribl e pai n and coul d not m ov e. A gr oup ofatl eas t f our officer s threa tened t o “sui t up” o n hi m , i
. e. , to bea tN o. 07

- 1551 3 hi m , f ornotr espondi ng. A bout 45 m i nutes l ate r, pri son st affe xt r ac te d Pow e from hi s ce l li n a r es tr aintc ha i r a nd too k hi m to be m on ito red i n the H eal th S er vi ces U ni t. Pow e di ed the f ol l owing day. P owe’s m othe r Eu ni ce bro ught a w ro ngful death su it aga i ns t s eve ra lpri son em plo yee s, and herat torneys interview ed Brid ges in M arch 2005 as a w itness to the care Pow e r ecei ved w hi l e in hi s ce l l

. Bri dges provi ded an a ffi d a v i ta n d a g r ee d t o t e s t i fy i fth e c a s e we n tt o t r i a l

. He was i nf o r m ed th athi s affi dav i t ha d b een us ed bythe at t o rn ey s in a su m m ar y jud gm en t re sp on se filed in A pri l200 5, an d l ate r he l earned that the par ti es had re ached a set tl em ent a gr eem ent. Bri dg e s b e l i e v e s tha tDe fe nd a nt s b e g a n a c a mpa i gn ofhar ass m ent a gainst him in r eta l i ati on f orhi s par ti ci pati on in th e Po w e l aw sui t. Fr om M ar ch to Decem ber20 05, ce r ta i n De fen dan ts c au se d hi s i nc o m i nga nd o ut goi ng m ail to be d ela ye d . On e D efe n d an t o fte n kic ke d h is cel ldoor, tur ned his cel ll i gh t offand on, and opened hi s ce l ltrap a nd s l amm ed i t sh utt o s ta r tl e hi m whenhe w as sl eepi ng. H e co m pla i ned to her i n N ove m ber20 05, an d i n resp ons e, sh e fi led an unj us tified d iscipli na ry charge aga i nst hi m . A notherDefendant upgraded that unj usti fi ed char ge to a “ m aj oro ffense, ” ind i cating tha t hi s co nduc t cr ea te d a r i sko fs er i ou s d i srupt i o n a t th e p r i s o n . B rid ge s w as lat er cle ar ed of an y w ro n gd oin g in connect i on with the disc i plinarychar ge. Bri dge s fi l e d s e v e r a lg r i e v a nc e s i n r e s po ns e t o the se inc i de nt s , a nd h e b e l i e ves the r eta l i ati on co nti nued thr ough i m propertr eat m ent o fhi s g ri evance s. A few ex am p l es

—4 N o. 07

- 1551

2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 A r e q u i r e s a d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o r e v i e w a c o m- 1 pl ai nti n a c i vi l ac t i on i n whi c h a p ris one r s ee ks r edr es s fro m a g ove rn m en t al e nt i t y oroffi c eror e m pl oye e ofa gove rn m en ta l e n tit y an d d ism iss th e c o m p la in t (o r a p o rt io n th er e o f) ifthe com plainti s f ri volous, i s m alic io u s, or f ail s to s tat e a cl aim upo n w h ic h r el ie fm ay be granted or s eeks m onetary re lie f fro m a d efe n d a n t w h o is im m u n e fr o m su ch re lie f. D efe n d an ts fou n d te c h n ica l rea so n s t o re p ea te d ly rej ec t h is gr i evance s, such a s a l l eging to o m any i ssues i n a s in gle g r i ev an ce o r no t a ll eg i nge no ug h f ac ts t o s uppo r t th e i ssues ; Defendants f al sel y s tat ed that hi s g rieva nce a p p e a l h a d n o t b e e n fi l e d wi th i n th e r e q u i r e d t i me peri od and dis m i sse d i t; and Defe nd ants f ailed t o perf or m i nvest i gat i ons on hi s g ri evance s o r provi ded m i sl eadi ng i nfo rm ati on in thei r re sponses . On Septem ber2 2, 20 06 , Bri dges fi l ed a pr o se § 1 983 ac ti o n wi ththe di st ric t co ur t, c l ai m i ngtha t th e D efe nd ants re tal i ate d against hi m f orexer ci si ng hi s F i rs t A m endm ent r i ghts t o fre e s peech and to peti ti on f or re dress o fgr i evance s, and als o preve nted hi m fro m fi l i n g g r i e v a n c e s . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s c r e e n e d th e c o mpl aintunde r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 915A a nd di smi ss ed th e cl ai m s a gainst five Defe nd ants because Bri dges had no t al l eg ed f ac ts t o s uppo r t cl ai m s a g ains t th em. The 1 re m ai ni ng ni ne Defendants fi l ed a m oti on t o dism i ss und e r R ul e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o r f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m a nd f or Bri dges’ s f ai l ure to exhaust hi s a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es un de r the P r i s o n Li ti ga t i o n Re f o r m Act, 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 997e ( a)
. Ci ti ng B rookins v. Ko lb , 99 0 F
. 2d 30 8 ( 7th C ir. 1993 ) , the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Bri dges di d notN o. 07

- 1551 5 sta te a cl ai m bec ause he di d not e ngage i n prot ecte d F i r s t Ame n d me n t a c t i v i t y . He fi l e d a n a ffi d a v i ti n a wr o n g fu ld e a th l a ws u i tth a twa s pe r s o n a lt o P o we

— w hi ch di d no t r i se t o the l ev elo fa pub l i c con cerns o a s to c o nsti tute prot ecte d conduct. Because the c ourtco ncl ud ed th at he did no t e n g a ge in prote cted activity, the cou rt decl i ned to add re ss w heth er B ri dges had e xhausted hi s admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es. Br i dge s appe al s fr o m the Rule 12(b) ( 6) r uling but does not chal l enge the dis m iss al o ffi v e D e fe n d a n t s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 A.

I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew a dist ric t co urt’ s g ra nt o fa m oti on t o d ism iss for fa ilu re to st at e a cla im d e n ov o. St. John’s U ni t e d Chur ch of

Chr i s tv. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 5 02 F. 3d 616, 62 5 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ). To sa tis fy t h e n ot ice -p lea d in g s ta n d ar d , a com pla i nt m ust pro vi de a “ shor t an d pl ai n sta tem ent o f th e c laim sh ow in g t h at t h e p lea d er is en tit led to relie f,” w h ich is su fficie n t t o p ro vid e t h e d efe n d an t w ith “fa ir n ot ice ” o f th e c l a i m a n d its ba sis
. Eri cks on v. Par dus , 12 7 S. Ct. 21 97, 22 00 ( 2007 ) ( per curi am ) ( ci ti ng B el l Atlanti c C orp. v. Tw om bly, 12 7 S
. Ct. 19 55, 19 64 ( 2007 ) ) ; Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2)
. The co m plaint “m ust a ctual l y suggesttha t th e pl aint i ffha s a r i g htt o r el i ef, b y provi di nga l l eg at i o ns th at rais e a righ t t o re lief ab ov e t h e s p ec u lat ive lev el.” Windy City, 53 6 F
. 3d at 668 ( ci ti ng Tam ayo v. Blag ojevi ch , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d 1 0 74 , 1 0 8 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 0 8 ) )
. Ho we v e r, we const rue pro se com pla i nts l iber al l y a nd hol d th em to a l ess s tr i ngent sta nd ar d than f or m alpl eadi ngs dr afted by l aw yer s. Er i cks on , 1 27 S. C t. at 2200 ( citation om itted ); O br ie cht v. R aem is ch , 517 F.3d 489 , 492 n.2 (7th C ir. 2008).6 N o. 07

- 1551 A . Bri d ges’s F ree Sp eec h Claim T o p r e v a i lo n a F i r s tA me n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, B rid ge s m u st u ltim at ely sh o w t h at (1) h e e n ga ge d in acti vi ty prot ecte d by the Fi rs t Am endm ent; ( 2) he s uffer ed a depr iva ti o n tha t woul d l i k ely de te r F i r stAm en dm en t ac ti vi tyi n the futur e; a nd ( 3) the F i r stAm en dm en t ac ti vi tywas “ atl ea sta mot i va tingf ac to r ” i n the De fen d an ts ’ d ec isio n t o t ak e t h e re ta liat or y a c tio n . Woodr uf f v. M as on , 542 F. 3d 545, 551 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng M as s ey v . Johns on , 4 5 7F
. 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) )
. B r i d g e s ’ s c o mp lain t a lleg ed th at D efe n d an ts ret alia te d ag a i n s t h im for p articipatin g i n th e Pow e law su it. Th e d istri ct cou rt deter m i ned that Bri dges’ s co m pla i nt fai l ed to st ate a claim b ecause hi s a l l ega ti ons, ta ken a s t rue, would not sa ti sfy the fi rs t e l em ent, thathe ha d engag ed i n acti vi ty p ro te c te d by th e F ir s t A m en d m en t. In re ac h in g t h is concl usi on, the dist ri ct c ou rtr el i ed on the fre e s peech di sc us si o n fr o m o urde ci si o n in Brook i ns . I n Brook i ns , a pr i so n inm at e fi l ed a § 19 83 c o m pl aint c laim in g t h at p ris on offic ials h ad ret a l iat ed ag ain st h im byr emov i nghi m fr o m hi s p osi ti o n c o - ch ai r i nga pr i so napprove d gro up cal l ed the Para l ega lBase Com m i ttee ( whi cha ss i st ed i nm at es wi thl eg alr es ea r cha nd prepar i ng l ega ldocum ents) an d then tr ansfer ring hi m to an o th erf ac i l i ty
. The r et al i at i o n o cc ur r ed afte r Br o o k i ns w ro te a l et ter, wri tte n on o ffi ci alCom m i tte e l ett er head an d se n t t o v ar iou s p ris on off icia ls, re q u es tin g t h at all secur i ty sta ffi nvol ved i n fi l i ng neg ati ve conduct r epor ts ag ai nst a cer tain i nm ate be gi ven pol ygr aph exam i nati ons pri orto the inm ate ’ s di sci plinaryhear i ng. H e a l soN o. 07

- 1551 7

o ffe r e d t o p a y f o r th e e x a ms f r o m th e fu n d s o fth e C o mm itt ee . U n d er th e p ris on ’s re gu lat ion s, B ro ok in s s h ou ld have re quested p er m i ssi on fr om the Com m i tte e’ s a dvis or p rio r t o se n d in g t h e c or re sp on d en c e; h e a lso sh ou ld have had the Com m i tte e’ s a dvis orco - si gn the r equest, si nce i t purpor ted to autho ri ze sp en ding ofCom m i tte e fund s. Bro okins di d nei th er . A s a r esul t, he was r em ove d fro m the Com m i tte e and t ra nsfer re d t o anoth er p ri son sh ortly thereafter. Br o o k i ns a ss er te d a v i o l at i o n o fhi s FirstAm en dm en t ass oci ati onalr i ght t o act on be hal fo f t h e ot her pri sone rs . W e e xplain ed thata pri sone r’ s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts, p articu larl y associationa l right s , are nec essarily curta iled by im p ris on m en t. Id. at 3 12-13
. W e co ncl ud ed that Broo ki ns had no t sat i sfi ed hi s burden on sum m ary jud gm en t to dem o ns tr at e th atthe pr i so n o ffi ci al s, i n r ea ct i ng to Broo ki ns’ s v i ol ati on ofthe re gul ati ons, “e xagge ra ted thei r re sponse to p re se rv i ng the l egi ti m ate penol ogi cal obj ecti ves ofthe pri son envi ro nm ent. ” Id. at3 13
. Br o o k i ns al so c lai m ed that hi s l ett eri m pli cate d his fre e s peech ri ghts, but w e rej ecte d his ar gum ent b ecause “he ha[ d] no t dem onst ra ted thatthe speech contained i n hi s l ett er ro se to t h e le velo fpro tect ed speech. Bro okins di d not w ri te the l ett erto i nfo rm t h e pri son offi ci al s about a pr i so n i ss ue tha t was a matt ero fpub l i c i ss ue o r c o ncer n. ” Id. Forsupport, we cited t o J us ti ce S te ve ns ’ s co ncur r i ngo pi ni o n in RA V v. Ci ty of St. P aul, M i nn. , 50 5 U
. S. 37 7, 42 0- 21 ( 1992 ) ( St eve ns, J
. , co ncurr i ng) a n d i ts d isc u ss ion of th e c on c ep t t h at th e F irs t A m en d m en t is define d b y the co ntent ofthe speech in questi on; f or exam ple , “[ s] peech abo ut publi c o ffi ci al s o r m att er s o f8 N o. 07

- 1551 pu bl i c co ncer n re cei ves gr eat erpro tect i on than speech ab ou t o th er to p ics .” Si nce Brookins , we ha ve di sc us se d the “ publ i c co nc ern” sta nd ar d i n the conte xt o f p risonerspeec h on o thero ccasi o ns . In Sa snett v . Litsch er, 197 F. 3d 290, 293 (7th Cir. 1999), w e hel d that a r egul ati on that perm itt ed pri sone rs to w earr osa ri es but notcr oss neck l aces di scr i m i nated aga i nst Pr ote sta nts a nd violat ed the Fi rs t Am endm ent. T h e p ris on er s a l so br ou gh t a se p ar at e fre e s p ee c h cla im w hi ch w e rej ecte d b ecause , al though w ear i ng a cro ss is “in a s en se e xpr es si ve , ” to b r i ngthe c l ai m underthe f re e s pe e c h c l a us e wo ul d “ e mpt y the fr e e - e xe r c i s e c l ause ofa dist i ncti ve m eani ng. ” Id. at 292. Th e prison ers’ des ire to w ear c ro ss es w as not done to co nver t o theri nm ate s orm ake a pu bl i c st ate m ent a nd so the fre e s peech cl ai m f ai l ed b y an al ogyto the P icke ri ng-C onnick“p u b lic c on c e r n ” l in e o f ca se s. Id. ( ci ti ng Pic ke r i ng v. Bd. of Ed. of Tw p . Hig h S c h
. Di s t
. 20 5 , 39 1 U .S. 56 3 (1 96 8); Conni ckv. M yers , 461 U
. S. 138 (1983)). I n M cE lr oy v . Lo pac, 40 3 F
. 3d 855 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( per cur i am) , a pr i so ne r who l o sthi s j o b i n the pr i so n’ s se wi ng sh op as ke d w h et h er h e w ou ld rec eiv e “ lay -inp ay ” w h ile aw ai ti ng tr an sferto the opti calgl ass sho p. A nnoyed b y t h e i n q u iry , pr iso n offic ials alleg ed ly filed fals e d isc iplinarychar ges ag ai nst M cElr oy and refused to r eassign hi m to the gl ass sho p. W e re j ecte d M cElr oy’ s cl ai m o f Fir st A m e n d m e n t r e t a liat ion, con c lu d in g t h at h is in q u iries ab ou t la y-in p ay “w er e a m at te r of ‘p u re ly i ndi vi duale co no m i c i m po r tance ’ a nd no t o fpub l i c co ncer n. ” Id. at 858 ( quoti ng B a l t o n v. C ityof M ilw a uk ee, 13 3 F.3d 103 6, 1040 ( 7th Cir. 1998)).N o. 07

- 1551 9 O ur m ost recen t m en tion o f Brook i ns ’s pu bli c con cern sta nd ar d was in P e a r son v. Welbo rn , 471 F.3d 732 ( 7th Cir. 2006 ) , i n w hi ch a pri son offici al, ci ti ng Brook i ns , ar gued th atc o m pl aint s ab o utth e u se o fs ha ck l es i n g r o up ther apy a n d the denia lo fya rd ti m e were not prot ecte d by th e Fir st A m en d m en t. W e rej ecte d the offi cial’ s r e l i a n c e o n Brook i ns bec ause, ev en as sum i ng tha t P ea rs on ’s s p ee c h w as su bj ec t t o a p u b lic c on c er n te st, his com pla i nts ur gi ng a cha n ge in pri son pol i cy m et that te st
. Id. at74 0. Pe a rs on d i d not, however, endor se Brook i ns ’ s publ i c co ncer n re quire m ent forpri sone r speech

— the v al i dity o fthatte st w as not an i ssue. Bri dges no tes thatthe concept ofa pu bl i c concer n tes t for p ris on er sp ee c h h as ca u se d co n sid e r ab le c on fu sio n in th e d ist r i c t c ou rt s o f th is c irc u it. Se e, e . g. , Wat ki ns v. Ka sper, 56 0 F
. S up p. 2d 691, 70 2 ( N
. D. I nd

. 20 08) ( “I t i s no t re adily ap parent how i m posi ng the r equi re m ent that p risoner sp eech be related to a m atter of pu bli c con ce rn inord er to st at e a Firs t A m en d m en t re ta liat ion cla im ser ves to str i ke the a pp ro pri ate bal ance b etween a pri sone r’s spe ech i nt erests an d a prison’s p en ologi cal i nt erest s. N onethel ess , ther e is S eve nth Cir cui t ca se l aw sugges ti ng tha t the publ i c co ncer n re quir em ent that w as d ev elo p ed in t h e p u b lic e m p l o y e e co n te x t is ap p li cab le in t h e prison cont ex t as w ell

. ”). A t B ridges’s u r g i n g, we t a k e u p th e ma t t e r n o w. “[F ]ed er al c ou rt s m u st ta ke co gn iza n c e o f th e v alid const i tu tional cl ai m s o fpri son i nm ate s. ” Turn er v. Sa fley, 482 U
. S. 78, 84 ( 1987 )
. Lik e students w ho d o n ot shed th eir free sp ee c h righ ts att h e sc h oo lh ou se ga te s, Tink er10 N o. 07

- 1551

v. D es M oines Indep. Cm ty. Sch. D is t. , 3 93 U
. S. 50 3, 50 6 ( 19 69 ) , nei th er do pr i so n wal l s “fo r m a b ar r i ers epa r at i ng p ris on inm at es fro m t h e p ro te c tio n s o f th e C on st itu tio n .” Turn er, 48 2 U.S
. at84
. H owever, “[l] aw ful i ncarc er ati on bring s about the ne cess ar y withd ra w alo r l i m i tat i on o f m an y pr ivi leges a nd r i g ht s, a r et r ac ti o n j us ti fi ed bythe consi derat i ons und er l ying our penal sy ste m . ” Pel l v. P roc un ier, 41 7 U.S
. 81 7, 82 2 ( 1974 ) ( quoti ng Pri cev. Johns t on , 334 U
. S. 266, 285 (1948 ))
. The S upr eme Co ur t ha s addr es se d the s co pe o fpri so ner s’ F i r stA m en d m en t r i g ht s o n s ev er alo cc as i o ns . In P el l , j o ur na l i s t s an d pr i s o n i nma t e s ch a l l e ng e d a p r i s o n r e g u l a t i o n pr e v e n t i n gf a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e ws betw een the m e d ia an d i nd ivi d ua l p risoners. Th e C ou rt no t e d tha t“ a p r i s o n i nma t e r e t a i ns tho s e F i r s tAmen dm ent r i ghts that ar e no t inconsi ste nt with hi s s tatus as a pri sone r orwith the l egi ti m ate penol ogi calo bj ecti ves ofthe cor re cti ons sys tem
. ” Id. at82 2. L eg itim at e p en olo gic a l o bj ec tiv es inc lu d e c rim e d et er re n c e, p ris on er reh ab ilita tio n, an d int er n al p ris on s ec u rit y. Id. at 82 2-2 3. If pr i s o n o ffi c i a l s ha v e i de nt i fi e d a n i ns t i t ut i o na l ne e d that a re gu lat ion h elp s t o s olv e, th at d ec isio n is “p ec u liar ly w i thi n the province and pro fess i onalex p er ti se ofco rr ecti ons offi ci al s, and, i n the abse nce of substa nti al e vid ence i n the r e c o r d t o i nd i c a t e tha tthe o ffi c i a l s h a v e e xa gger ate d thei r re spon se t o these co nsi derat i ons, co urts shoul d or dinar i l y deferto thei r expe rt j ud gm ent in such m att er s. ” Id. at 827. W i th re spect to the r egul ati on pro hibi ti ng f ace- to- f ace i nter vi ew s, “i nsti tuti onalco nsi derat i ons, such as secur i ty and rel ate d adm i ni str ati ve probl em s, as wel l as the a cc ept ed an d l eg i ti m at e po l i cyo bj ec ti ve s o ftheN o. 07

- 1551 11

cor re cti ons sys tem i tse l f, r equi re thatso m e l i m i tat i on be pl ac ed o n s uchv i si ta ti o ns . S o l o nga s r ea so nabl e an d effec ti ve mean s o fc o m m uni catio n r emai n o pena nd no d isc rim in at ion in t er m s o f co n t e n t is in vo lve d , . . . in d raw i ng such l i nes, ‘ pri son offi ci al s m ust be acc or ded l ati tu d e.’ ” Id. at82 6 ( quoti ng C ruz v. Beto , 40 5 U.S
. 31 9, 321 ( 1972 ) )
. A ccor dingl y, the Court up hel d th e regula

tio n . Id. at 828. I n Turn er, the S upr eme Co ur t co ns i der ed r egu la ti o ns re latingto i nm ate m ar ri age s a nd co rr espondence between i nm ate s a t di ffer ent insti tuti ons. A ftera discussi on o fpre vi ous d ecis i ons on pri sone rs ’ fre e s peech r i g ht s, the Co ur t cr y st al i ze d the t es t to b e us ed: “ when a pri son re gu l ati on i m pinge s o n i nm ate s’ co nsti tuti onal ri ghts, the re gul ati on i s v al i d i fi t is r ea sonab l y r el ate d to l egi ti m ate penol ogi cal i nter est s. ” 4 82 U
. S. at89
. S eve ra l f acto rs ar e r el evanti n re achi ng a deter m i nati on, such a s w hetherther e i s a co nnecti on be tw een the re gul ati on and a va lid and neutr algo ver nm ent inter est; wh ether th er e ar e al te r na ti ve mean s o fe xe r ci singthe c o ns ti tu
ti o na lr i g ht; and the i m pac t th ata cc o m m o dat i o n o fthe as se r te d r i g htwi l lha ve o n gua r ds, i nm at es , a nd the allo c at ion o f p ris on res ou rc es . Id. at 89-90. Th e cou rt concl ud ed that the r est ri cti on o n i nm ate co rr espondence w i th i nm ate s in ot h er faci l i ti es w as re aso nabl y r el ate d to l egi ti m ate penol ogi cali nter est s, but the m ar ri age r est ri ctio n w as n ot
. Id. at 91, 97
. I n Shaw v
. M urphy, 5 32 U. S
. 2 23 , 2 28

- 29 ( 20 01 ) , the Suprem e Cour t rej ecte d the not i on that inm ate
- to- i nm ate correspondence that co ntai ned l ega ladvi ce e nhanced12 N o. 07

- 1551 th e prot ection s othe rw ise avail able un d er Turn er, a case that “adopted a unit ar y, defe re nti al sta nd ar d for review ing p risoners’ cons t it ut ional cl aim s.” Th e C ou rt note d that “ [ t] o i ncre ase the cons tit uti onalpro tect i on base d up on the co ntent ofa com m unica ti on fi rs t r equi re s ana ss es sm en t o fthe v alue o ftha t co nt en t. Butthe Turn erte st, byi ts ter m s, si m plydoes notacc om m od ate val uati ons ofco ntent. ” Id. at 230. P el l , Turn er, a nd Shaw d eal t with the const i tuti onal i ty of pr i s o n r e g ul a t i o ns tha t i mpl i c a t e d pr i s o ne r s ’ F i r s tAmen dm ent r i ghts. See also Tho r n b u rgh v . Ab b ot t, 4 90 U
. S. 40 1 ( 1989 ) ( consi deri ng r egul ati ons on pri sone rs ’ r ecei pt of p u b lica tio n s); Jones v . N
. C
. P risoners’Labor U nion, Inc. , 43 3 U. S
. 1 19 ( 19 77 ) ( co ns i der i ngr egul at i o ns r el at i ngt o pr i so ner s’ uni ons)
. The cas es did notexpl i ci tl y m andate

— nor di d the y e xc l ud e

— the Turn er te stf o r c l ai m s o func o nst i tu ti o na lr et al i at i o n fo r the e xe r ci se o ffr ee spe ec h. The Suprem e Court has, how eve r, devel oped a sta n d ar d f or as se ss i ngunc o ns ti tu ti o na lr et al i ati o n in a no th erc o nte xt

— the publ i c em plo yee se tting. I n Pic ke r i ng, a pu bl i c schoo l tea cherwas dis m i sse d fr om hi s pos i ti on a fterwri ti ng a l ett erco ntai ni ng so m e e rr oneou s statem en ts, as w ellas criti cism of th e sch ool board ’s past handl i ng o fr eve nue-r ai sing p ro posal s. The l ett er w a s p ub l i s he d in a l o c a ln e ws pa pe r . T he Co ur tde s c ribed th e s i g ni fi ca ntpub l i c i nt er es t i n c i ti ze ns ha ving“ fr ee a nd u n h in d er ed d eb at e o n m at te r s o f p u b lic im p or ta n c e,” P icke r i ng, 39 1 U.S
. at57 3, wh i ch m ust be bal anced w i th th e S ta te ’ s i nt er es t as a n e m pl o y eri n “ pr om otingthe effi ci ency ofthe pu bl i c serv i ces i t per f or m s thro ugh i tsN o. 07

- 1551 13

em plo yee s, ” id. at 568. The cas e di d not pre sent a s i tuati on in w h ic h th e teach er’s spee ch i nt erfered w ith his p erform an ce o fhi s du ties as a t ea ch ero r the o per at i o n o fthe sc h oo l gen er ally

. Id. at 572-73. A c c o r d in gly, the C ou rt hel d that “ abse nt pro ofo ff al se sta tem ents knowingl y o r r ec k l es sly made byhi m , a t ea ch er ’ s ex er ci se o fhi s r i g ht to speak on i ssues o fpubli c i m port an c e m ay not furni sh the b asi s forhi s di sm i ssa lfro m publi c em plo ym en t. ” Id. at 574. I n C onnick, a n a s s i s t ant d i s t r i c ta t t o r ne y di s t r ib ut e d a que st i o nna i r e to o th ers ta ffmem be r s ab o utv ar i o us offi ce pol i ci es and atti tudes i n herdepartm en t. H er re sea rch i nto the op ini ons ofherco - w or ker s was m otiv ated by her objection to being tran sferred to w ork i n a no the r c r i mi na lc o ur t, b uts he wa s t e r mi na t e d wh en he r sup ervisors l earn ed of th e qu estionn air e . T he Cou rt add ed a nuance to the Pic ke r i ng t est, hol ding that “w hen a p ub li c e m p lo y ee sp eaks n ot as a citi zen up on m atters ofpubli c co n c er n, but i nstea d as a n em plo yee upon m att er s o nl y of perso nali nter est, abs ent the m ostunusual ci rcum sta nces, a f edera lco urt i s no t the appropr i ate f o r um i n whi c h t o r e v i e w the wi s do m o fa p e r s o nne l deci si on t ake n by a pu bl i c ag ency al l ege dlyi n re acti on to the e m plo yee ’ s be havi or . ” C onnick, 46 1 U.S
. at14 7. Because the dist ri ct att or ney’ s speech was noti ntended to i nfo rm the pu bl i c t hat hero ffi ce was notfulfi l l i ng i ts re sponsibi l i ti es orto di scl ose pote ntial w ro ngdoi ng, her spe ec h was a matt ero fhe r o wn p erson al int er es t an d d id n otco n st itu te p ro te c te d sp ee c h

. Id. at 148. I n Garc e t t iv. Ce b al l os , 54 7 U.S
. 41 0 ( 2006 ) , a depu ty dist ri ct a tto rneyco m pla i ned that he h ad suffer ed re tal i a-14 N o. 07

- 1551 tory actions at his j ob after he sp oke to his sup ervisors and w ro te m em or anda abo ut an a ffi davi t use d i n obta i ni nga war r an t i n whi chhe fel t th er e wer e m i sr epr es en tat i ons; he a l so tes ti fi ed f orthe defe nse a s t o hi s ob se rv ati o ns abo utthe a ffi dav i t. The Co ur t fur th erc lar i fi ed th e P icke ri ng-C onnickst andard by differ enti ating be tw een speech m ade pu rs uant to the em plo yee ’ s offi cial du ti es an d sp ee c h m ad e a s a cit ize n . Id. at 4 2 1 . “ T ha t con side rati on

— th e fact that [ the e m plo yee ] spok e a s a pro secuto r fulfi l l i ng a re sponsibi l i ty to advi se hi s s up er vi sor about how bes t t o proce ed w i th a pend i ng ca se

— di st i ng uis hes [ thi s ] c a s e fr o m t ho s e i n whi c h the F i r s tAmen dm ent pr ovi des pro tect i on a gainst di sci pline. ” Id. W i ththe se c as es i n mi nd, we no w turn t o w he th erthe pu bl i c co ncer n tes t sh ou ld be appli ed i n the conte xt o f pri sone r speech. The publi c co ncer n i nqu i rywas cr eat ed to mai nt ain the de l i ca te b al an ce b etwee n a c i ti ze n’ s r i g ht to s pea k( an d the pub l i c i nt er es t i n h av i ngtho ug ht ful de b a t e ) a nd the e mpl o y e r ’ s n e e d t o e ffe c t i v e l y p r o v i de gov er nm ent s er vi ces. The S up re m e Cour t e xplained th e empl o y er ’ s i nt er es t i n G arce tt i : W he n a c i ti ze n ent er s g o ve r nm en t se r vi ce , the ci ti zen by necess i ty m ust accept cer ta in l i m i tati ons on hi s o r her fre edom

. Governm ent e m plo yer s, l i k e pr i va te e m pl o y er s, ne ed a si g ni fi cant deg r ee o fc o nt r o lo ve r the i r e m pl o y ee s’ wor ds an d acti ons; w i thout i t, ther e would be l i ttl e chance f or th e e fficie n t p ro vis ion of p u b lic s er v i c e s . Pu b lic em p loy ee s, m or eo ve r, oft en oc c u p y t ru st e d p os iti ons i n so ci ety
. W hen theys peak o ut, theycanN o. 07

- 1551 15 express vi ew s that c ontr avene go ver nm ental pol i ci es ori m pai r the pr operper f or m anc e o f gov er nm entalfuncti ons. Id. at41 8-1 9 (in te rn al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). Pr i so n s o fficia ls al so ha ve a si g ni fi ca nt i nt er es t i n o per at i ng effec ti ve l y, b ut the concerns ar e o fa ver y di ffer ent nature. The l egi ti m ate p e n o l o g i c a lo bj e c t i v e s t e s tw a s c r e a t e d t o p r e s e r v e s o me fre e s p ee c h righ t s fo r p ris on er s in a re st ric tiv e a n d ch all engi ng envi ronm ent where pri son offi ci al s m ust be f ocus ed o n c r i m e det er r en ce , pr i so ne r r eh ab i l i ta ti o n, a nd i nt erna lpr i so n s ec ur i ty
. And, o bv i o us l y, a c i ti zen h as the ch o i ce t o e nt er into pub l i c empl o y m en t, whi l e i m pr i so nm en t is not v o lun tary. T his is not to say tha t prison ers h av e g re at er free sp ee c h rig h t s t h an p u b lic e m p loy ee s. A pr i s o ne r ’ s s pe e c h c a n b e c i r c ums c r ib e d i n man y ways th a ta p u b l i c e mpl o y e e ’ s s p e e c h c a n n o t, a n d th e t wo tes ts f oras ses si ng pro tect ed speech a c c ount f ortho se differ ences. The publi c em plo yee cas es dist i ngui sh be

tw een sp eech m ade as a ci ti zen a nd speec h m ade as an em p loyee , b utt o dr aw a c o r o l l ar yi n the pr i so n c o nt ex t w oul d be t o re m ove pro tect i on fro m near l y e ver ythi ng a pri sone r say s. Shu t o fffro m the outsi de w or l d, the pr i soner’ s speech w oul d ne ar l y al w ays be speech m ade “as a p ris on er ” ra th er th a n “ a s a cit ize n .” T o fu rt h er lim it prot ecti on t o m att er s o fpubli c co ncer n w ould s ee m to re str ict p ri sone rs ’ co nsti tuti onalr i ghts f arm or e than i s “j usti fi ed by the c onsid er atio ns underl yi ng o ur penal sys tem
. ” P el l , 41 7 U.S
. at82 2 ( quoti ng P ri ce, 334 U
. S. at 285). A fter engagin g in a th ou gh tful d iscus sion of th e history o fp risonera nd pub l i c empl o y ee fr ee s pee chc as es , the16 N o. 07

- 1551 S i xth Ci r cui t ex pr es se d do ubt as to th e pr o pr i ety o fusing a p u b lic c on c er n standard forpri sone rs ’ sp ee c h, Thad deus- X v. B la tter, 175 F .3 d 3 7 8, 393 (6th Cir. 1999) (en ban c), a l tho ugh the c o ur tul t i mat e l y l e ftth e que s t i o n un de c i de d, see Locke t tv. Su ar di ni, 526 F. 3d 866, 874 ( 6th Cir
. 20 08) ( “[ W ] hetherthe pu bli c- concern tes t dete rm i nes the pro

tect i on t o b e aff or ded a pri sone r’ s s peech i s a n open questi on in the Si xth Cir cui t.”). The S i xth Cir cui t’ s doubt w as bas ed up on th e m an y d ifferenc es betw een prison ers a n d e mpl o y e e s : “ Gi v e n th e d i s t i n c t i v e r i g ht s o fth e t wo types ofpl ai nti ff s, the separ ate i nter est s o fthe tw o types o fg o ve r nm en t en ti ti es , a nd the di ss i m i l arna tu r e o fthe r el at i o ns hi p b etwee n the pl aint i ffa nd the g o ve r nm en t i n the se t wo s et ting s, a ny ho ne sta tt em p t t o per f o r m the ba lanci ngpr es cr ibe d b y the S upr eme Co ur t i n Pic ke r i ng c an n otu n h es ita tin gly im p o r t re as on in g fro m th e p u b lic empl o y m en t setti ng i nt o the pr i so n s et ting . . . . [ C] o nt ex t m att er s. ” Thad deus- X, 175 F
. 3d at 393. InE i ch e nl aub v. Towns hip of Indi ana , 385 F.3d 274 ( 3d Cir. 20 04 ) , the Thi rd C i r cui t co ns i der ed a ca se i n whi chpl ainti ff s, wh o w er e pr i vate ci ti zens, br ought a cla i m o fr etal i atio n agai nst the go ver nm ent; the dist ri ct c ourthad dism i sse d thei r cl ai m bec ause th e speech was nota m a t t e r o f pu b l i c c o nc e r n. Th e Th i r d Ci r c ui t drew an an al o g y t o pr i so ne r s pee ch : [ O]utsi de the em plo ym ent con text the F i rs t A m endm ent forbi ds re talia ti on f orspeec h eve n about pri vate m att er s. Fo r exam ple , we have hel d that First A m endm ent c l ai m s m ay be b ase d on al l ega ti ons that a pri sone r’ s co m pla i nt ag ai nstN o. 07

- 1551 17 a guard cause d ret aliati on. Real i sti cal l y, thes e ki nd s ofcom pla i nts are o ften hi ghl y par ti cul ar i zed obj ecti ons to al l ege d i nd i vi du al m i str eat m ent. W e d o no t, ho wev er, i m po se a “ publ i c co nc ern” thr e s ho l d. Id
. at 28 4 (c ita tio n om itt ed ). Se eal s o F r i e dl v. Ci ty of New Yo rk, 2 10 F
. 3d 79 , 8 7 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 0) ( “[ W ] e r ej ec t th e co ntenti on . . . thatw h er e the [ pri sone r] al l ege s r eta l i ati on f orpro tect ed speech in the f or m o fa p eti ti on t o the g over n m en t, h e m u st es ta b lish th at th e s p e e c h co n ta in ed in h is p et itio n to th e g ov er n m en t w as a m at te r o f p u b lic con cern . ” (int erna l qu otation m arks om itted ))
. Oth er c our ts ha ve s i m pl y a ppl i ed th e Turn ert es t wi th

out consi dera ti on o fa pu bl i c co ncer n re quir em ent. Forexam ple , the Fi fth Ci rcui t a pp l i ed the “l egit i m ate p e n o l o g i c a lo bj e c t i v e s ” t e s twi th o ut f a n f a r e : “ Whi l e we deal here w i th [ re tal i ati on] ra ther than a [ pri son] reg ula

ti o n, the s ame s ta nda r d i s appl i cabl e to de te r m i ne i fthe pri son author i ti es’ r esponse to [ pla i nti ff’ s] wri ti ng is const i tuti onal l y per m i tte d.” Jackson v. Ca in , 86 4 F
. 2d 1235 , 12 48 (5 th C ir. 19 89 ). Se e al s o Cor ne l l v. Woods , 69 F. 3d 1383 , 1388 ( 8th Cir. 1995) ( “[ A pri sone r’ s] r i ght t o re spond to a pri son i nvest i gat or ’ s inquir i es i s no t in c onsis tent w i th a per son’ s s tatus as a p ris onero r w i th the l egi ti m ate p en ologi cal obj ectives of the correc tions syst em . ”). W hi l e th er e ar e di ffer ent “ rung[ s in] the hi er ar chy o f Fi rs t Am endm ent v al ues, ” Carey v. Brown , 44 7 U.S
. 45 5, 46 7 ( 1980 ) , we concl ud e that a pri sone r’ s s p ee c h can be pro te c te d e v e n w h en it d oe s n otinv olv e a m at te r of p u b lic18 N o. 07

- 1551

Because this opinion dis avow s the pu blicconce rn t es t us ed 2 i n pr i or pr i s one r s p eech c ases i n thi s c i rc ui t, i tha s be enc i rc ulat ed am ong all j u dg es ofthi s court i n regular act ive s ervic e und er C ir cuitR ule 40( e)
. N o j ud ge f avored a rehear ing en b anc. Thi s c as e does notaddres s the cont i nui ng val i di t y ofcas es l i ke 3 M cEl ro y, w h e r e w e c o n c l u d e d th a ta p r i so n e r -e m p l o y e e ’s (co n tin u ed ...) concern. W e wil lapplythe Turn er l egi ti m ate p en ol ogi cal

2 i nt e r e s t s t e s tt o de t e r mi ne wh e the r Br i dg e s h a s a l l ege d th athe e ng ag ed i n pr o te ct ed spe ec h. B rid ge s a lleg ed th at h e e n ga ge d i n p r o te c te d sp ee c h in th e affi d avit he fi led in the law su it by Pow e’s m o t h er. Pro vid i ng an eye w i tness acc ount ( oran a uralacc ount, as in this case ) of an incide nt w he re prison offici als are alle ge d to h av e m ist re at ed an in m at e w h o w a s g ra ve ly i l l( a nd l a t e r di e d) i s n o ti nc o ns i s t e ntwi th l e g i t i mat e pen o l o g i ca li nt er es ts
. Pr i so ns ha ve a n int er es t i n k ee pi ng the inm ate s a s s afe a nd se cure as p os sible wh i l e i m pri soned, and t ruthful speech that describes possibl e abuses can ac tual l y b e qui te consi ste nt w i th thato bj ecti ve. C f. C o rn ell , 6 9 F
. 3d at1 38 8 ( “[ T] r uthful l y a ns wer i ng questi ons concerni n g a m i sco nd uct i nvest i gat i on a gainst a co r r ec ti o na loffi ce r i s undo ubt edly qui te c o ns i st en t w i th l egi ti m ate penol ogi calo bj ecti ves. ” ( i nter nalq uotatio n m ar ks om itt ed )). B rid ge s h as th er efo re ad eq u at ely al l ege d, f orpurposes o fsur vi vi ng a m otion to di sm i ss, tha the en g a g e d i n a c t i v i t y pr o t e c t e d b y th e Fi r s tAmen dm en t. Wood ruf

f , 54 2 F
. 3d at 551 ( quoti ng M a ssey, 45 7 F
. 3d at 716)
. W hether hi s cl ai m i s m er i tor i ous i s a q uesti on th at ca n be ex p lore d in d isc ov er y an d , if n ec es sa ry , at t ria l. 3N o. 07

- 1551 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 com p lain ts ab ou t com p en sation w ere n o t m atter s of “p u b lic concer n” p ro te cted b y the Fi rs t Am endm ent. 403 F. 3d at 858. To the ex tentthata dis ti ncti on can be m ade b etween speec h as an inm ate a nd spe ech as a p rison er-em p l o y ee, the p u b lic con cern stand ard m ay still ha v e som e ap p lication to p rison ers’ free spe e c h c l a im s. A ltho u g h w e no ted ab ov e tha t G ar ce tti ’s ana l ys i s ofth e c om pet i ng i nt er es t s ofthe publ i c e m pl oye r and the publ ic e m p l oye e i s ge ne ra l l y i nappl i c abl e t o the pr i s on c ont ex t, p erh ap s s i m i l ar c onc er ns ar e pre s en twhenpr i s on offi c i al s offerin m ate s vol unt ar y e m pl oym en ti n the pr ovi s i on of p rison serv ices. T he official inter e st in the “ efficient p ro v is i on” ofthos e s er vi c es, co upl ed wi th the be ne fi t s t o the pris oner from taki ng the j ob, m ay jus ti fy a p u b lic concern li m it ati on on the p risoner’ s speec h m ade as an e m ployee. G ar ce tti, 54 7 U. S. at41 8. On the oth erha nd, the deg re e ofc ont ro l exe rci se d b y of fic ial s o ver al l aspect s ofa pris oner’ s li fe m ay m ake any d ist in ct ion between speec h as an inm ate and s peech a s a p ri so n er -em p lo y ee u n w o rk a b le

. C f. id. at41 8- 19 ( c om par i ng the free citizen ’ s d u al ro les as a pu b lic em p loy ee and a p r iv ate citizen ). W e ne ed no t d ecid e in th is case w he the r the p u b lic c o n c e r n st a n d a r d o u g h tto a p p l y to a p r i so n e r -e m p l o y e e ’s f re e s pee c h cl ai m be c aus e, i n pr ovi di ng a n a ffi davi ti n the Pow e l aw sui t, Bridges was not s peaking as a pris oner- em ployee. W e br i efl y turn to the ot h er two el em ents ofa Fi rs t A m endm ent r eta l i ati on cl ai m , wh i ch w er e no t a d d re ssed by th e d istri ct cou rt

— w h etherBri dges e xperi enced an adv er se a ct i o n tha t woul d l i k ely de te r F i r stAm en dm en t a c t i v i t y i n th e fu t u r e , a n d i fth e F i r s tAme ndm en t ac ti vi tywas “ atl ea sta mot i va tingf ac to r ” i n the De fen d an ts ’ d ec isio n t o t ak e t h e re ta liat or y a c tio n . Id. Bri dges alle ge d th at h e s u ffer ed ret al i a tio n th ro u gh d ela ys in h is20 N o. 07

- 1551 incom ing an d outgoin g m ail ; haras sm en t by a gua rd k i ck i nghi s ce l ldo o r, tur ni nghi s ce l ll i g hto ffa nd o n, a nd openi ng hi s ce l ltr ap and sl am m i ng i t s hut i n or der t o startle him w he n h e w as sleep ing; unj us tified d iscipli na ry charg es; and i m proper dism i ssa l of hi s gr i evance s. Even though s om e o fthes e a l l ega ti ons w oul d l i kely n ot be acti onabl e in and ofthem sel ves, if th e a cts w er e t ake n i n re tal i ati on f orthe exer c i se ofa const i tuti onal l y pr ote c te d righ t, th en th ey are ac tio n ab le u n d er § 19 83
. See Ho w la nd v. K ilqu ist, 833 F.2d 639, 644 ( 7th C ir. 1987) (“[ A ]n ac t in ret alia tio n for th e e x er c ise of a c on st itu tio n ally pr o te ct ed r i g hti s a ct i o nabl e unde r Se ct i o n 19 83 ev eni fthe act, wh en ta ke n for di ffer ent r eas ons, would have been p ro p er .”) ; see also H igg a son v. Fa rley, 83 F. 3d 807, 81 0 ( 7th C ir. 1996) (per c u r iam ) (retali atory tran sfer ofa prisone r); B abcock v. White, 10 2 F
. 3d 26 7, 275 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( re tal i ato ry d ela y in tra n sfe rrin g p ris on er ); C ornel l , 69 F. 3d at 1389 (retali atory d iscipli ne ). Br i dge s’ s co m pl aintdo es no t spe ci fi ca l l y a l l eg e th atthe retaliatory activi ties w ou ld “d eter a p erson of ord inary firm n es s” from ex er c isin g F irs t A m en d m en t a c tiv ity in th e fu tu re . B a rt v. Telfo rd, 677 F.2d 622 , 625 (7th C ir. 1982). B u t c on st ru in g h is p ro se c o m p lain t lib er ally , O b r i e ch t, 517 F. 3d at 492 n. 2, and acce pti ng al lo fhi s a l l eg atio ns as tr u e, on e “ p os sib le in fer e n c e [ ]” o f th e c om p lain t, Tam ayo , 526 F.3d at 1081, i s tha t the a ll eged h arassm en t b y nu m erous pr i son em plo yee s in a v ar i etyo fwa ys o ver a peri od of several m ont hs w ou ld d ete r a p erson of ord inary fi rm ness fro m exer ci si ng hi s F i rs t Am endm ent r i ghts. A gain, wh etherBri dges’ s a l l ega ti on s are i n f act tr ue o r w he th er the alleged haras sm en t w ou ld a c t u a ll y d eter aN o. 07

- 1551 21 p e r s o n o fo r d i n a r y fi r m ne s s a r e n o tqu e s t i o n s th a twe add re ss at the pl eadi ng st age . Fi nal l y, Bri dges a l l ege s that the Defendants would not h a v e h a r a s s e d h i m b u tf o r hi s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e P o we l a ws ui t
. T ha t, t o o , i s s uffi c i e nt
. Br i dg e s h as s t a t e d a cl ai m f orfre e s peech r eta l i ati on. Pl

. Com pl. ¶¶ 1 0- 16, 25
.
B. Bri dges’ s Access t o the Court s and Peti t i on f or

Re d r e s s C l a i ms Bri dges a l l ege d thre e o thercl ai m s in hi s co m pla i nt. Fi rs t, i nter tw i ned w i th hi s fr ee speech cl ai m , Bri dges cl ai m ed th e Defen dan ts r et al i at ed ag ains t hi m f o r fi l i ng ana ffi dav i t i n the Po we l aws ui t i n v i o l at i o n ofhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ght t o acces s the co urts . S eco nd , he c l ai m ed that on e Defendant r eta l i ate d against hi m byfi l i ng an unj usti fi ed dis ci plinarychar ge afterhe c om pla i ned about her hara ssm ent o fhim

— an d a no th erDe fen dan t m o di fi ed th e ch arge t o b e m o r e se r i o us

— i n vi ol ati on o f hi s r i ght t o peti ti on the go ver nm ent forr ed ress ofgr i evan c es . Th i r d , h e c laim ed th e D efe n d an ts im p ro p er ly d en ied an d rejec te d h i s g rie va n c es , w h ich vio lat ed h is ri ght t o peti ti on the go ver nm ent fo r re dress o fgr i evance s. T h o u g h h e s p e c i fi c a l l y l ab e l e d p a r a g r a p h s inh i s c o mp lain t w ith th es e c laim s a n d ad d r e s s e d th em in h is re p ly to De fe nd a nt s ’ mo t i o n t o di s mi s s , the di s t r i c tc o ur tdi sm i sse d the co m pla i n t w ithout i nd ependent dis cussi on o f these cl ai m s. A s with the fre e s peech cl ai m , to pre va il in an acce ss to th e court s o r peti ti on f orr edres s o fgr i evance s r eta l i ati on cl ai m , Bri dges m ust ul ti m ate ly show that ( 1) he e ngage d22 N o. 07

- 1551 i n a ct i vi typr o te ct ed by th e F i r stAm en dm en t; ( 2) he suffer ed a depri vati on that would l i kel y dete r Fir st Am e nd men tac t i v i t y i n the futur e ; a nd ( 3 ) the F i r s tAmen dm en t a c tiv ity w as “a t le as t a m ot iva tin g fa c to r” in th e Defen dan ts ’ dec i si o n to ta k e th e r et al i at o ry acti o n. Wood ruf f , 542 F. 3d at 551 ( quoti ng M a ssey, 457 F.3d at 716 ). The F i r stAm en dm en t r i g htt o p eti ti o n the g o ve r nm ent forr edres s o fgr i evance s incl ud es th e r i ght o f ac c es s t o th e c ou rt s. Cal. M ot orTr ans p. Co. v. Tr uc ki ng U nlim ited, 404 U .S. 50 8, 51 0 (1 97 2); Gros s b aum v. Indi anap ol i s -M ar i on County Bl dg. Aut h. , 100 F. 3d 1287, 12 94 n. 5 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6)
. “ [ P] er so ns i n pr ison, l i k e o th eri ndivi du al s, have th e r i ght t o peti ti on the Governm ent for re dress o fgr i evance s which, o fco urse , i ncl ud es ‘ acces s o fp r i s o n e r s t o th e c o u r t s f o r th e p u r p o s e o fp r e s en ti ng thei r com pla i nts. ’ ” Cru z , 40 5 U.S
. at32 1 ( quoti ng Jo hn son v. A very, 393 U .S. 48 3, 48 5 (1 96 9)); cf. Wood ruf f , 54 2 F
. 3d at 561 ( Posner, J
. , co ncurr i ng) ( emphas i zingtha t th e ri ght t o peti ti on incl ud es a reaso na ble r i g htofacc es s to the c o ur t s )
. Whi l e the r i g hto fa c c e s s t o the c o ur t s r e quir es p rison offici als to provid e prison ers w ith th e ne c e ssary to ols “t o a tt ac k t h eir se n te n c es , d i r e c tly or c olla te ra lly,” an d “t o c h alle n ge th e c on d itio n s o f th eir co n fin em en t,” Lew is v. C a sey, 518 U
. S. 343, 35 5 ( 1996 ) , i t i s no t a n abst ra ct, fre es ta n d in g rig h t t o leg al a ss ist an c e, i d. at 351. A pri sone r ass er ti ng a denia lo facc es s c l ai m m ust s how an “ actual i nj ur y ” i n th e f o r m o f i nt er fer en ce wi th a “no nfr i vo l o us l ega lcl ai m . ” Id. at35 3. “In othe r w or ds, the ri ght o facc ess to the c o ur ts i s ti ed to a nd lim it ed bya pr i so ne r ’ s r i g ht to ‘ vi nd i cati on f ora separ ate and dis tin c t ri ght t o see k j ud i ci alr el i eff orso m e wr ong. ’ ” Leh n v . Ho lm es , 36 4N o. 07

- 1551 23 F. 3d 862, 865 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng C hristo ph er v . Ha rbury, 536 U
. S. 403, 415 (2002 ))
. B rid ge s h as n o “ u n d er lyin g c laim ” t h at im p lica te s h is ow n righ t o f ac c es s t o th e c ou rt s. Ha rbury, 53 6 U.S
. at41 5. The onl y underl yi ng cl ai m i n thi s case i s the Powe w ro ngful death la w sui t, m eani ng tha t r eta l i ati on a gainst B rid ge s fo r p ro vid in g a n affid av it in th at law su it c ou ld o nl y a ffec t th e a cc es s r i g ht s o fPo we’ s m o th er . But B rid ge s c an n otrely on an ot h er p lain tiff’s inju ry in su p p or t o f h is ow n d en ial of a c c es s c laim

. See C a sey, 51 8 U. S
. a t 35 7- 58 ( co nc l udi ngtha t th e l o ss o fno nfr i vo l o us l ega lcl ai m s by tw o i nd i vi du al pri sone rs di d not e stabl i sh the r equi si te i nj ury f oran e nti re cl ass o fpri sone rs to see k s yst em w i de i m prove m ents i n the pri son’ s l ega l as sis tance prog ra m )
. S i nce Bri dges has no “r i ght t o j u d icia l relie f” d ist in c t fro m P ow e’s cla i m , Ha rbury, 53 6 U
. S. at 415, hi s a ffi davi t in the Pow e l i ti gat i on was nota const i tuti onal l y pr ote cted e xerci se ofhi s righ t to acces s the c ourt s. W e ha ve i n the pa str ec o g ni ze d s i tu ati o ns wher e o ne p ris on er m a y h av e a Firs t A m en d m en t re ta liat ion cla im base d on the d en ial ofano therpri sone r’ s r i ght o facc ess to the c o ur ts
. In H iggas on , a pri sone r ar gued that he was t r a n s fe r r e d t o a n o th e r p r i s o n f a c i l i t y a ft e r h e fi l e d h i s o wn l aw su its and assi ste d otheri nm ate s with fi l i ng l aw sui ts. W e he l d tha t “[ i ] fa pr i so ne r i s tr an sf erred f o r e xe r ci sing hi s o wn r i g hto fa cc es s to the c ou rts, o r f o r a ss i st i ng o th er s i n e xe rcising the i r r i g hto fa cc es s to the c o ur ts , he has a cl ai m under § 1983
. ” H iggas on , 83 F. 3d at 810. I m p ortantl y, however, H i gga son w as a “j ai l house l aw yer, ” i d. at24 N o. 07

- 1551 811 n. 3, and w e hav e a ckno w l edged thatthes e a dvocate s have sta nd i ng to as ser t thei r fel l ow inm ate s’ de n ial of ac c es s c laim s, s e eBui s ev. H ud k ins , 58 4 F
. 2d 223, 22 7 ( 7th C ir. 1978). W ith ou t t h at st an d in g, p r iso n offic ials co u ld si mpl y t r a ns fe r t r o ub l e s o me j a i l ho us e l a wy e r s a nd l e a ve the r e mai ning i nma t e s “ wi tho ut a n a l t e r na t e mea ns o f acces s t o the c ourt s. ” Id. at22 8; see a lso Joh nso n v . Av ery, 39 3 U
. S. 48 3, 48 7 ( 19 69 ) (i nval i dati ng a pri son re gul ati on prohibi ting habea s peti ti oner s fro m o btaini ng the as si stan ce of a j ailhou se law yer). U nl i ke the s er vi c es ofa j ai l house l aw yer, we do not thi nk tha t Bri dges’ s a ssi sta nce as an a ffi ant- w i tness was “n ec es sa r y t o v i ndi ca te [ Po we’ s] r i g ht of a cc es s to the cour ts. ” Thad deus- X, 1 75 F
. 3d at 39 5. Tha t i s es pec i al l y t r ue si nce Powe’ s m othe r has a l re ady o btaine d and used Br i dge s’ s affi dav i t i n h erl aws ui t, s ug g esti ngtha t sh e suffer ed no inj ury thro ugh the a ll ege d ret al i ati on a gainst B rid ge s. See M as s ey v . He l m an , 196 F.3d 727, 7 4 0 ( 7 th Cir. 1999 ) ( com m en ting that a pri son physi ci an wh o gave a d ep os itio n in a p ris on er law su it c ou ld n otsh o w “ t h a t h is te r m i na ti o n int er fer ed with o th erpr i so ne r s’ a cc es s to the c ou rt s b y c on fin in g t h eir ab ility to ga th er ev id e n c e in supp or t of thei r case s”)
. A ccor dingl y, Bri dges’ s par ti ci pati o n in the Po we l i ti g at i o n w as no t su ffi ci en tly c o nnecte d to Pow e’ s r i ghts to al l ow Bri dges t o ass er t a deni al of a c c es s c laim

. Se ei d. at 739- 40 ( hol ding that th e p ris on physi ci an l acke d standi ng to r ai se the pr i sone rs ’ r i ghts of ac c es s t o th e c ou rt s). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly d ism issed Bri d ges’s claim all eging retaliati on for exerci si ng hi s r i ght t o acces s the co urts
.N o. 07

- 1551 25 M oving to Bri dges’ s next c laim , Bri dges a l l ege s that on e D efe n d an t re ta liat ed ag ain st h im for e x er c is i n g h is con stitut iona l right to seek red ress for th e D efend an t’s ha r ass m e nt
. Br i dg e s c o nt e nd s tha th e c o mm un i c a t e d a g r i ev an ce t o the g o ve r nm en t when he thr ea te ned the Defe nd ant that h e was go i ng to fi l e a gr i evance ag ai nst h er be c au se it w as i n a p p ro p ria te for h er to kic k h is c ell door, tur n hi s l i ghts on a nd o ff, and sl am h is cel ltr ap whi l e h e wa s s l e e pi ng . Br i dg e s c i tes P ears on , i n w hi ch w e “d ecl i ne[ d] t o hol d that l egi ti m ate co m pla i nts l ose th ei r pr o te ct ed st atus sim pl y b ec au se the y a r e spo k en . N o th i ngi n the F i r st A m en dm en t i ts el fs ug g es ts tha t th e ri ght t o peti ti on f orr edres s o fgr i evance s o nl y a tta c hes w hen the peti tio n in g take s a speci fi c f or m . ” Pears on , 47 1 F. 3d at 741. But i t s eem s i m pla usibl e that a t hr eat t o fi le a g ri evance would i tse l fco nsti tute a F i rs t Am endm entprotec te d gr i evance . Even i fthe thre at w er e deem ed prot ecte d acti vi ty, Bri dges’ s a l l ega ti ons do not lead to an i nfe re nce that the r eta l i ati on w ou ld detera perso n of o r di na r y fi r m ne ss fr o m e xe r ci singF i r stAm en dm en t ac ti vi tyi n the futur e. Br i dges a l l eg es tha t th e Defen dan t fi l ed an unj usti fi ed dis ci plinarychar ge, wh i ch another Defe nd ant upgraded to a “m aj oro ffense. ” The char ge w as later dism issed

. A single reta li atory d iscipli na ry charg e that i s l ate r dis m iss ed i s insuffi ci ent t o ser ve as th e b as is of a § 19 83 ac tio n . C f. B a rt, 677 F. 2d at 62 5 (“ A tor t t o be a cti onabl e r equi re s inj ury. I t would t ri vi al i ze th e F i r st A m en dm en t t o hol d th a t h ar as sment f o r e xe r ci singthe r i g hto ffr ee s pee chwas a l way s ac ti o nable no m atter h ow un li kely to d eter a p erson of ord inary firm n es s fro m th at ex er c ise
. . . .”). Th is c laim w as p ro p er ly dism i sse d. Pl

. Com pl. ¶¶ 1 7- 20.26 N o. 07

- 1551

Bridg e s ’ s a l l e ga t i on s m a y l a t e r be c ome r e l e va nt, h owe ve r, 4 becau s e the Pr i s on Li t i gat i on Ref or m Actr equi re s thathe exhausthis a v a ilable adm ini st rat ive r em edies bef ore he can (co n tin u ed ...) B rid ge s’s fina l cla im is th at th e D efe n d an ts im p ro p er ly dism i sse d and rej ecte d his at tem pts to fi l e a dm i ni str ati ve gr i evance s. Thi s i s hi s o nl y c l ai m thatdoes notar i se und era re tal i ati on theor y; he c om pla i ns o fa dir ect vi ol ati on of hi s ri ght to peti ti on the gov er nm ent f or red re ss of gr iev an c es . H e a lleg es t h att h e D efe n d an ts u se d te c h n ical i ti es to re p ea ted l y r ej ect hi s g ri evance s. Fo r exam ple , th ey w ou ld c l a i m t h at h e h ad st at ed to o m an y iss u es in one gr i evance wh en Bri dges was m er el y at tem pti ng to expla i n the conte xt o f t h e gri evance ; then w hen he fi l ed anothe r gr i evance , theywould cl ai m that h e had not gi ven them enough back gr ound inf or m ati on. The r ej ecte d gr i evance s w er e “dir ectly re l ate d t o the cl ai m s sta te d in [ Bri dges’ s] com pla i nt. ” Pl. C om pl. ¶ 21. H e d i d not a l l ege that he was prev ented fro m p eti ti oni ng f orr edres s o f any o thergri evance s. S ecti on 1 983 i s a to rtst atute , so B rid ge s m u st h av e s u ffer ed a h ar m to h av e a co gn iza b le c laim

. D oev. Welbo rn , 110 F.3d 520 , 523 (7th C ir. 1997). Becaus e he i s cur r en tly e xe r ci singhi s r i g htt o pe ti ti o n the go ve rn m en t fo r re d re ss of grie va n c es t h r ou gh th is law su it, h e h as n otbe en h a r m e d

. Se eAnt one l l iv. Sh e ahan , 81 F. 3d 1422 , 14 30 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( “[ Pl ai nti ff’ s] i nvocat i on ofthe j ud i ci alpro cess i nd i cate s th at the pri son has no t i nfr i ng ed hi s F i r stAm en dm en t r i g htt o pe ti ti o n the gov er nm ent fora re dress o fgr i evance s. ”)
. Thi s cl ai m was al so proper l y di sm i sse d. Pl

. Com pl. ¶¶ 2 1- 24. 4N o. 07

- 1551 27

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 br i nga § 1 9 8 3 a c t i on . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a )
. I fBri dg e s s ub

m it ted grie vances that did not c om ply w ith the pris on’ s proced u ral req u irem en ts, then the p rison w as en titled to reject th ose grie vances. An d to fil e a c lai m , his adm ini st rat ive r em edies m us tha ve bee n p ro p er ly ex h a u ste d

. Woodf or d v. Ngo , 548 U.S
. 81, 95 ( 20 06 ) (“T he b en efits of exh au stion can b e rea l i z e d o nly if the p rison grie v an ce system is g iv en a fair op p or tu nity to c ons i der the gr i eva nc e. The pr i s on gr i eva nc e s ys t em wil l no t ha v e suc h a n o p p or tu nity un less the g riev an t com p lies w ith the syste m ’s cr itical p ro ced u ral ru les. ”). B rid g es alleg es, tho u g h, th at h is griev an ces m et the p ro ced u ral req u irem en ts bu t were nev er th el es s denied. Ifthe dist ri ctcourt lat er dete rm i ne s tha t Br i dg e s ha s no t e x ha us t e d hi s a dm i ni s t r a t i ve rem edies , the court m ay need to deter m ine w hetherthatf ail ure w as attrib u tab le to th e alleg ed d en ial of the g riev an ce p ro cess.

3- 4- 09 I I I . Concl usio n Because Br i dges s tat ed a c l ai m f orfre e s peech r eta l i ati o n due t o hi s fi l i ngo fa n affi dav i t i n the Powe l i ti g at i o n, Pl

. Com pl. ¶¶ 1 0- 16, 25 , we R EVER S E th e dec i si o n o fthe dist ri ct c ourti n part
. W i th r espectto B ri dges’ s cl ai m s o f r et al i at i o n fo r ac ce ss to th e co ur ts , r et al i at i o n fo r thr ea te ni ng t o file a g ri evance , Pl

. Com pl. ¶¶ 1 7- 20, and denia lo f th e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s , P l

. C o mpl

. ¶¶ 2 1

- 2 4 , 2 6 , we A F F I RM th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ism iss al.