United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-40241 

Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Elroddrick B. Wells, Sr., Librarian at Telford Unit; Tracy L. 

Smith, Correctional Officer at Telford Unit; Samuel W. Nations, 

Correctional Officer at Telford Unit; Chad Doddy, Correctional Officer at 

Telford Unit; Michael E. Alsobrook, Assistant Warden at Telford 

Unit; Office of the Attorney General; Freddrick 

Gooden; Sandra Clark; Carl McKellar; Lonnie 

Townsend; Wade Alexander; Texas Board of Criminal 

Justice; Todd E. Harris, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:18-CV-68 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

February 10, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-40241 Document: 00516197522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
No. 21-40241 

2 

Before Southwick, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Jerrial Ibenyenwa, Texas prisoner # 1638105, moves for leave 

to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) after the district court dismissed his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action and certified that an appeal was not in good faith. By 

moving to appeal IFP, Ibenyenwa challenges that certification. See McGarrah 

v. Alford, 783 F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015). Our inquiry is limited to 

determining whether Ibenyenwa identifies any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

See id.; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We may dismiss a 

meritless appeal. Baugh, 783 F.3d at 202 n.24; see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Ibenyenwa contends that the defendants retaliated against him in 

various ways for filing more than 50 grievances and abusive and insulting 

complaints about their management of the law library. Prison officials may 

not retaliate against an inmate for exercising his right to complain about 

misconduct or to gain access to the courts. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 

1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Ibenyenwa engaged in a vexatious pattern of filing petty grievances 

about every aspect of the law library that displeased him or failed to promptly 

accommodate his every request. The grievances were accompanied by 

vulgar, insulting, and abusive complaints directed at library staff. We 

seriously doubt that frivolous grievances and abusive complaints are a 

legitimate, good-faith exercise of First Amendment rights so as to be 

protected from retaliation. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310-11 (5th 

Cir. 1997) (holding that a prisoner is entitled only to a reasonably adequate 

opportunity to file nonfrivolous claims); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1249 

(5th Cir. 1989) (indicating that the use of a grievance procedure would not be 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

Case: 21-40241 Document: 00516197522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
No. 21-40241 

3 

justified if a complaint to prison officials is “not in good faith”). We 

therefore merely assume without deciding that Ibenyenwa was exercising 

legitimate First Amendment rights. 

Regardless, the record in this case exemplifies the need to view 

prisoners’ retaliation claims “with skepticism, lest federal courts embroil 

themselves in every disciplinary act that occurs in state penal institutions.” 

Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Ibenyenwa’s pleadings demonstrate a transparent bid to “inappropriately 

insulate [himself] from disciplinary actions by drawing the shield of 

retaliation around [him.]” Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166. He essentially “dared” 

the defendants to respond to his persistent and abusive attacks by promising 

that every unfavorable action would be regarded as actionable retaliation. 

Even weighing this necessary skepticism against the liberal construction 

afforded pro se pleadings, we agree with the district court that Ibenyenwa’s 

conclusional assertions are inadequate to state a claim of retaliation under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166. Nor 

do they present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Audler v. CBC Innovis 

Inc., 519 F.3d 239, 255 (5th Cir. 2008). 

In addition, an act done with a retaliatory motive “against a prisoner 

is actionable only if it is capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness 

from further exercising his constitutional rights.” Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 

682, 684-86 (5th Cir. 2006). Despite the defendants’ actions, Ibenyenwa’s 

filing of grievances and abusive complaints continued unabated, even during 

the instant litigation. Any assertion that the defendants “chilled” Ibenyenwa 

from exercising a constitutional right is belied by Ibenyenwa’s own actions. 

Further, even if Ibenyenwa were deemed to have stated a plausible 

claim of retaliation, the district court’s application of qualified immunity 

provided an alternative basis for judgment. See Lincoln v. Turner, 874 F.3d 

Case: 21-40241 Document: 00516197522 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
No. 21-40241 

4 

833, 847 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that claims could be barred by qualified 

immunity although they survived Rule 12 dismissal). “Qualified immunity 

is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established 

constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). 

Ibenyenwa asserts vaguely that the district court’s application of qualified 

immunity was “conclusory.” Accordingly, he has not alleged that he had a 

“clearly established” right to file his abusive grievances or complaints or that 

the defendants actions were an objectively unreasonable response to them. 

His conclusional challenge to qualified immunity presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appeal. See Audler, 519 F.3d at 255. 

Ibenyenwa also contends that the district court erred by refusing to 

allow him to file first and third amended complaints, by wrongly affording 

Eleventh Amendment immunity to a state entity (that was not named in the 

operative complaint), and by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over a state law claim about the deduction of funds from a prison account. 

These issues also present no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is 

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 783 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal and the district court’s dismissal count as 

strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 

537-38 (2015). In addition, in 2015, a district court imposed a strike against 

Ibenyenwa for filing a similar frivolous § 1983 action. See Ibenyenwa v. 

Carrington, No. 5:12-CV-150 (N.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) (unpublished). 

Because Ibenyenwa has now accumulated a total of three strikes, he is 

BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

Case: 21-40241 Document: 00516197522 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/10/2022
No. 21-40241 

5 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES 

BAR IMPOSED.

Case: 21-40241 Document: 00516197522 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/10/2022