FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 03, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN TH E U

NI TE D S TA TE S CO URT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1211 9

____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00163 CV -F- N LEROY SMITH, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us GW ENDOLYNMOSLEY, KENN ET H JO NE S, KENNET H SCONYERS, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (J ul y 3, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e: In this case, an Alabam a prison inm ate serving a life sentence for m urderSe c tio n 1 98 3 s tate s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 1 Every person who, unde r color of any statute, ordinanc e, re gulation, custom, or usag e, of a

ny State . . . subjects, or c auses to be subje cted, a ny citizen of the United States or other

person within the jurisdiction there of to the depr ivation of any rig hts, privilege s, or immuniti es sec ured by the Constitut ion and laws, shall be liable to the par

ty injured in an a ction at law . . . f or re dress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smit h is presently

confine d in the Bibb County Correc tional Fac ility

in Bre nt, Alabama. 2 2 se ek s le ga l and e qui ta

ble r el ie f ag ai nst

the pr iso n’ s w ar de n, a ssi stant w ar de n, and hearing reviewofficer

under 42 U. S. C. § 198 3 on the groun d that they retaliate d 1 ag ai nst him f or e nga gin g inpr ote ct ed

spe ec h – f

or c om pla ini ng t o th e as sis tant
w ar de n and the U
. S. D ep ar tm en t of Jus tic e ab out

c ondi tio ns o f co nf

ine m en t at the pr iso n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e de fe ndants sum m ar y j udgm en t, and the in m at e h as ap pe al ed . W e aff irm. I.

A. The inm ate is L eRoy

Sm ith. A t the tim e of the events giving rise to this law suit, Sm ith was confined in the Ea sterling Correctional Fac ility in Clio, A labam a. 2 On or a bout Friday , January

3, 2003, Sm ith sent th e following ty pe-w ritten letter to A ssi stant W ar de n K en ne th J one s c om pla ini ng a

bout pa st and p re se nt c ondi tio nsThe text of the letter indicated that copies w ere beingsent to the “Commissioner of 3 Correc tions, the Attorney Gene ral, a

nd the United States Jus tice De partment.”

3 of his c onf ine m en t at E as te rl ing : 3 Re : M an da tor

y Y ar d C al l W ar de n Jo ne s, th is is a fo ll ow- up let te r to th e req ue st th atI se nt y ou on Dec. 3, 2 00 2. H a v i n g g o tn o r e s p o n s e t o th e r e qu e s tc o me s a s n o r e a l s u r p r i s e t o me be ca use I ’ m w el l aw ar e of

thi s I nst itu tio n and i t’ s ha bit of disregarding anything brought to the attention of it’ s Adm inistrators by an i nm at e. Inc as e y ou’ re not

f am ili ar w iththe “pr ac tic e” I ’ m

r ef er ri ng t o, it’ s th e ac t of

f or ci ng the inm at es to le av e the w ar m dor m and g o out sid e in thirty -s om ethin g de gr ee te m pe ratur es , w eari ng sub- standard

c lothin g, w ithno s he lte r fr om the w int er -l ike c ondi tio ns. It sho uld c om e as no s ur

pr ise to y ou tha t the pr ac tic e is, a t the ve ry le as t, be ing arb itr ar ily , and m al ic iou sly appl ie d to the se gm en t of the prison p opul ation that can ill afford it. People w ith com prom ised im m une sy stem s, that m akes them easy candidates to contract pne um oni a. Athr eat, not onl y to the ir he al th, but

to the ir li ve s a lso
. T o be f or ce d ou tsi de in w eathe r co ndi tio ns tha t w e ar e be ing subj ec t t o am ount s to pr e- m ed itate d a ssa ult be ca use any pe rs on o f re as ona ble int el lig en ce kno w s th e lik el y c onse que nc es of

our be ing subj ec te d to suc h no n- se nse . May be y ou s houl d be f

or ce d to stand ar ound out sid e, uns he lte re d, in thi rty -e igh t de gr ee s, w itha10- 15 MP H br ee ze blo w ing
. S ee howy ou’ d li ke it
. M a y be the r e e xi st

s om e s i ni st e r

m ot i ve b e hi nd

the p r a c t i c e ? A powerf ul argum ent can be m ade that it is being do ne to get m ore pe opl e to s ignup f

or sic k- ca ll so the y

w ill have to pay

the $3. 00 co -p ay the re by inc re as ing the ins tit

uti ons co ff

er s un de rn eath the MI SC
. I N CO ME c at eg or y . O r m ay

be som e oth er

m oti ve e xis t, one that i s no t so r ea dil y

appare nt. L ike that f

ia sc o in199 9, w he re the adm inistrative heads of this institu tion d ecided to “ vaccinate” ev er y one in thi s in sti tut iona ga ins t the ve ne re al dis ea se sy phi lis
. A ny one w ithabr ai n kn ow s th at no s uc h th ing a s sy

phi lis va cc ine4

exists. A nd to to p it all off, m ore than twe lve hund red w ere then treated w ithou t ever being tested for the disease! Wha t i s th e tr

ue m oti ve be hin d th e m adne ss? I f I got sic k to the poi nt o f dy ing , w oul d it m atte r? O r is tha t the ge ne ra l i de a? I t’ s a re al ly goo d w ay

to lim it the pop ulatio n inthe pr iso ns! May be thi s is j ust part of the big pic tur e. W iththe w ay w e ar e be ing tr eate d, thi s instit ution shoul d forever be branded a test-bed for hum an experim entation, phy sically as w ell as psy cholog ically
. Rem em ber t h e i n f a mo u s Tu s k e g e e S tu dy? And w hile we are on the sub j ect of hea lth, let m e m ake another re le vant o bse rv at ion
. I c anc er ta inl y und er stand why

the re is a shortage of officer s here at E asterling. T he m aj ority of those here ar e too bu sy practicing m edicine to be officer s, telling the inm ates w hat they shoul d and sho uld no t eat to stay healthy
. This is quite a stretch fo r pe opl e w ho c an ’ t c ount to one -hundr ed

w ith out sc re w ing it

up! Excuse m e, m ay

be I’ m the one who is wr ong andthe De pt. of Corr
. really is provid ing it’s guards w ith a back-up course in m edical technolog y ! Bu t l et ’ s j ust

f or ge t a bout the f ac t tha t I w as he ld d ow n by f our of fi ce rs and f

or ci bly inj ec te d w itha“ sy

phi lis va cc ine ”; f

or ge t a bout the f ac t tha t I ’ m

be ing f or ce d to go o uts ide in fo ul w eathe r co ndi tio ns, dr es se d insub -s tandard

c lothin g, w he re , be ca

use of m y dia be tic co ndi tio n, I have aw eake ne d im m une sy ste m

m ak ing m e subj ec t t o the li fe thr eate nin g c ondi tio n of pne um oni a; and l as t, but c er ta inl y , by no m eans least, lets just forget a bout the phy sical and psy cholog ical m an ipu la tio ns b ei ng d one a t this pr iso n f ac ili ty . T he und er ly ing que sti on i s w he re w ill it

a ll en d? O n am or e sin ist er le ve l, w he n, if ev er , w ill it

e nd? H owc anthe inhum an ity w e ar e be ing sub

j ec te d to be j ustified? A s y ou can see, I have som e serious questio ns that ne ed s answ er s. F or

ins tanc e; w hy

a m I be ing f ed adie t c om

pose d of 95% starc h w he n y ou knowI a m dia be tic ? Why

a m I f or ce d to a tte nd a “ pr ogr es s r ev ie whe ar ing ” onl y to be tol d th at

I c an not m ak e an y pr ogr es s? Wh y a m I b e i n g d e n i e dc e rt a i n p r i v i l e g e s b e c au s e my supe rv iso r fa ile d to do the j ob h e is b ei ng p ai d to do. B ette r y et , w hy is i t m y r es pons ibi lity

to re m ind

him to do h is j ob? T he se are j ust

som e of the que sti ons I as k no wand b ef or e that IRegulation 403 contains a sec tion headed: “ DEF I NI TI ONS AND EX AMPL ES OF 4 RU L E V I OLAT I ON S.” Th e de fi nit ion and e xamp le s f

or Ma jor Rul e 41 are : “ MA KI

NGF AL SE STATEMENTS OR CHARGES – The speakingof slander ous, defamatory , or untrue w ords tendingto prejudice another .” The definition and examples for Ma jor Rule 57 are : “ I NSU B ORDI

NA TI ON– A ny

a c t, g e stu

re , r e mark

or state me nt whic h o bv iou sly re fl e c ts disrespec t to lawful authority .” 5 ha ve y et to ge t answ er s to . N ee dle ss t o say , I ’ ll co nti nue to as k th es e que sti ons an d I ’ m

goi ng o n r ec or d y et

a ga in a s havin g a ske d th es e que sti ons. In closing, as alw ay s, I ’ ll say again, thanks for y our tim e. R e s p e c t f u l l y, L eR oy S m ith– #1 0755 1 Jones received the letter at 10:3 0 a.m . on January 3. A fter r eading the letter, Jones conclu ded that part of what S m ith stated in th e letter m ay have constitu ted the vio la tio n of

tw o of the “ Ma j or Ru le s” of

A la ba m a D ep ar

tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns (“ D O C” ) A dm ini str at ive Re gul at ion403 : R ule 41, “ Makin g F al se S ta te m en ts o r Charge to a D OC Em

ploy ee w ith Intent to Deceive the E m ploy ee or to Pr ej udice Another Pe rson”; and Rule 57, “ Insubo rdination.” Jones therefore pr epared an 4

“ Institut ional Incident Report” and sub m itted it to hi s superviso r, W arden G w en dol yn M osl ey . A ft er m ee tin g w ithMo sle y , Jon es ha d S m ithbr ough t t o th e pr iso n’ s a dm ini str at ive inm at e w ai tin g are a an d a ske d hi m w he the r he ha d se nt the letter. When Sm ith adm itted sendin g the letter, Jones inform ed him that discipli nary

hearings would be convened for the purpos e of deter m ining whether he ha d vi olate d R

ule s 41 and 5 7 and, if

he ha d do ne so, w he the r he sho uld beThe disciplinary repor t was made out on “DOC F orm 225B ( Revised 7/92).” The form 5 serve d sever al purposes. F irst, it contained cha rg ing of fice r’s stateme nt – in this case made by J ones – informingthe inmate of the (Administrative Regulation 403) Rule violation, the date of occur renc e, and, a s indicated in the text following this footnote, the “[c]ircumstance s of the violation(s).” Sec ond, it contained the he aringoffice r’s notification of the date, time, a nd place of the he aringon the cha

rg ing of fice r’s a lleg ations. The inmate sig ned an a cknowledgment indicatingthat he had r ece ived the cha rg ing of fice r’s stateme nt and the hea ringoffice r’s notification of the time and pla ce of the hea ring
. Th e fo rm the re a ft e r s e rv e d a s th e fo rm at f or the he ari ng . It r e c or de d th e inm ate ’s ple a to the cha rg ing of fice r’s a lleg ations, guilty

or not guilty ; the char g ing of fice r’s testimony ; the inmate’s testimony ; the hear ing of fice r’s finding s as to whether the alleg ations constituted a violation of the cited rule ; and, if the he aringoffice r found a g ainst the inmate, the off icer ’s rec ommended sanc tion. Ad min istrativ e Re gula

tio n 4 03 se c tio n I I I .B pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: 6 Wardens will appoint a De partment of Corr ections employee to se rve a s Hea ring Of fi c e r o f a ny c ha rg e (s ) b ro ught a g a ins t an inmate purs ua nt t o A R 40 3. War de ns , personne l who have f

ormed a n opinion of the innocenc e or guilt of the char g ed inmate, Arr estingOffic er, a nd witnesses may

not serve a s Hea

ringOffic er. Th e re po rt

state d a s f

oll ow s: 7 On J anuar

y 3, 2003, at appr ox imately 10:30 AM, Warden Ke nneth J ones re ceive d c or re sp on de nc e fr om I

nmate L e ro y

Smit h, B /10 75 51 , a dd

re sse d to War de n Jon e s, 6 dis ci pli ne d. Jon es the n a ssi gne d S m ithto the r es tr ic te d pr ivi le ge s do rm pe ndi ng th e d is ci pl in ary pr oc eed in gs . Jone s pr ep ar ed

a“ D isc ipl inary

Re port” f

or e ac h a lle ge d vi olatio n, and 5 W ar de n M osl ey , a s r equir ed by A dm ini str at ive Re gul at ion403 , de sig na te d a
m em be r of the pr iso n st af

f, Co rr ec tio ns O ff

ic er Bi ll D av is, to pr es ide ove r the dis ci pli nary

he ar ing s. T he f

ir st d isc ipl inary

r ep ort c ite d S m ithw ithvio la tin g 6 Ru le 57, “ In subo rd inatio n, ” an d, a s in dic at ed in the m ar gin , r el at ed

the

“ [c ] ir cum stanc es of

the vio la tio n. ” T he se co nd r ep ort c ite d S m ithw ithvio la tin g 7wi th a n in dic atio n th at c op ie s w e re se nt t o th e Commis sio ne r, Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, and US D e pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e . T he c or re sp on de nc e c onta ine d in su bo rd inate statements such a s, “May be you should be forc ed to stand ar ound outside, unsheltere d, in thirty -eight deg ree s, with a 10-15 MPH bree ze blowing. See how you’d like it.” Th e re po rt

state d a s f

oll ow s: 8 On J anuar

y 3, 2003, at appr ox imately 10:30 AM, Warden Ke nneth J ones re ceive d c or re sp on de nc e fr om I

nmate L e ro y

Smit h, B /10 75 51 , a dd

re sse d to War de n Jon e s, wi th a n in dic atio n th at c op ie s w e re se nt t o th e Commis sio ne r, Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, and US Depa

rtment of Just ice. The corr espondenc e conta ined fa lse cha rg es such as, “L ike that fiasc o in 1999, where the administrative hea ds of this insti tution de c ide d to ‘v a c c inate ’ e ve ryon e in t his ins tit uti on a g a ins t th e ve ne re a l di se a se sy philis.” 7 Ru le 41, “ Makin g F al se S ta te m en ts o r Ch ar ge s to aD O C E m plo y ee w ithI nte nt t o D ec ei ve the E m

plo y ee or to Pr ej udi ce A nothe r Pe rs on, ” an d, a s in dic at ed in the
m argin, r elated the “ [c] ircum stances of the violation .” T he reports w ere served 8 on S m iththe sam e day , Jun e 3. T he r ep orts i nf orm ed him that the c harg es w oul d be he ardin sep arat e h eari ng s o n J an ua ry 7, b eg in ni ng at 3 :0 5 p .m . T he he ar ing s w er e he ld o n January 7, a s sc he dul ed
. Jon es and S m ithboth ap p ea re d . Th e f

i rs th ea ri n g d ea l twi t h th e a l l eg ed v i o l at i o n o f R u l e 4 1 , S m i t h ’s al le ge dly f al se state m ent, “ L ike that f ia sc o in199 9, w he re the a dm ini str at ive he ad s of thi s in sti tut ionde ci de d to ‘ va cc inate ’ e ve ry one in thi s in sti tut iona ga ins t the
ve ne re al dis ea se sy

phi lis
. ” S m ithple d no t gu ilty to the c harg e that the state m en t
was fal se an d t he n t es ti fie d. Ad m it ti ng th athe ha d m ad e a “ ba d c ho ic e o f wor ds ,” he ins ist ed

that the state m en t w as not f al se be ca use the ino cu la tio ns f

or sy phi lisSmit h also said that the stateme nt could not have “ prejudice d” Jones because he wa s 9 not employ ed at the pr ison at the time the inoculations wer e administere d. The “ hot dorm” and disciplinar y seg reg ation appea

r to have been the same. In any 10 e ve nt, wh e the r t

he y we re or no t is no t pe rt ine nt t o th is a pp e a l. Administrative Regulation 403 section V.F provides that the “ Warden or his/her 11 desig nee w ill approve or disa pprove the finding s and/or re commendations within ten (10)

8 had actually

taken place. Jones testified that the ino culations h ad been given at

9 the direction of Alabam a D epartm ent of He alth, and that Sm ith’s a llegation th at the y ha d be engiv ena t the dir ec tio n of the pr iso n’ s a dm ini str at ionw as f al se and, fu rt h er m o re , o b v i o u s l y i n t en d ed t o p re ju d i ce th o s e r es p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p ri s o n ’s ope ratio n, e spe ci al ly

sin ce S m ithha d se nt the le tte r to the U
. S. D ep ar tm en t of Justi ce. A t the conclusio n of the hearing, O ffice r D avis foundthat the statem ent at issue was fa lse. A s a sanction, he re com m ended forty -five day s of disciplin ary
se gr eg at ionand the los s of sto re , te le phon e, and v isi tin g pr ivi le ge s. A t the he ar ing inv olv ing the Ru le 57 v iol at ion , S m ithple d gu ilty to the charge. H e also testified, e xplaini ng, as he had at the pre viou s hearing, that he had
u s e da“ b a dc h o i c e o f

wo r d s . ” As as a n c t i o n , Da v i s r e c o mm e n d e df o rt y- f i v e d a ys in the “ hot

dor m ” an d alos s of

a ll pr ivi le ge s. 10 A dm ini str at ive Re gul at ion403 pr ovi de s th at the he ar ing of

fi ce r’ s f ind ing s
an dre co m

m en d at i o n ar e t o b e r ev i ew ed b y t h e Wa rd en o r t h e Wa rd en ’s de sig ne e. W ar de n M osl ey de sig na te d L t. K en ne th S co ny er s to se rv e as the 11workingday s after hear ing.” Smith d id n ot c la im that D avis c on sp ir e d w ithJone s, Mo sle y , a nd Sc ony e rs to r e ta liate 12 ag ainst him for exercisinghis right of fre e spee ch. Although the court did not expli citly consider Smith’s due proc ess claim as ha ving 13 be e n b ro ught u

nd e r t he pr oc e dura l c omp on e nt o f t he F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt’ s D ue Pr oc e ss Clause, we r ead the court’s dispositive order , which wa s based on a mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation, to have f ound that the proc edure s involved in the handlingof the a lleg ed violations of Rules 41 and 57 satisfied all applica ble due pr ocess r equire ments. The cour t denied Smit h’s equa l protection cla im because Smit h had not alleg ed an e qual protec tion violation. 9 reviewofficer
. On January 9, S cony ers issued his decisio ns; he approved Office r D av is’ s f ind ing s and r ec om

m en da tio ns. B. O n F eb ru ar

y 11, 200 3, S m ithf

ile d th is l awsui t a ga ins t M osl ey , Jon es , and Sc ony er s un de r 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83, a lle gin g th at the y c onsp ir ed

to, and subs equently

did, disciplin e him

without affording him

the due process or equal pr ote ct ionr igh ts g uarante ed by the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. A s r el ie f, S m ith
re que ste d th at

the dis ci pli nary

pr oc ee din gs b e de cl ar ed voi d and s ough t
co m pe nsator y and p uni tiv e da m ag es . S m ithlate r am en de d hi s c om pla int to ad d a cl ai m that the thr ee de fe ndants c om m en ce d th e dis ci pli nary

he ar ing in re ta liatio n ag ai nst him f or e xe rc isi ng h is F ir st A m en dm en t r igh t of f re e spe ec h. 12 O n Apr il 30, 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed S m ith ’ s du e pr oc es s and equa l pr ote ct ionc la im s w ithpr ej udi ce , but it did not a ddr es s S m ith ’ s r et al ia tio n 13 cl ai m . T he c ourt di sm iss ed S m ith ’ s r et al ia tio n c la im on s um m ar y j udgm en t onSmit h litigated his c ase pr o se in the district court. On a ppeal, he has bee n repr esente d 14 by c ouns e l a pp ointe d b y

thi s c ourt . See also B ox er Xv. Har ris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1112 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“F irst Amendment 15 rig hts to free speec h and to petition the g overnme nt for a r edre ss of g rieva nces a re violate d when a prisoner is punished for filinga g rieva nce c oncer

ning the conditions of his imprisonm ent.”)
. 10 Marc h 22 , 200 6, and e nte re d f ina l j udgm en t f

or the de fe ndants on a ll cl ai m s th e
sam e day . S m ithnowappe al s, c ha lle ngi ng the c ourt’ s di spos iti on o f his
re ta liatio n c la im , but

not his due pr oc es s and e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im s. 14

II. A. It is ane sta bli she d pr inc ipl e of

c onst itu tio na l l awthat an in m at e is considered to be exercising his First A m endm ent right of free dom of speech w hen he c om pla ins to the pr iso n’ s a dm ini str at or s a bout the c ondi tio ns o f his confinem ent. S ee, e. g., Far row v. W est, 320 F. 3d 12 35, 1248 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). It is a lso e sta

bli she d th at

an in m at e m ay

m ai nta in a

c au se of a ct iona ga ins t pr iso n ad m in is tra to rs who ret al ia te ag ai ns t h im form ak in g s uc h c om

pl ai nt s. Id
. To

15 prevail, the inm ate m

ust establis h these elem ents: (1) his speech was
co nst itu tio na lly

pr ote ct ed ; ( 2) the inm at e suf fe re d a dve rs e ac tio n su chthat the adm ini str at or ’ s a lle ge dly

r et al ia tor y c ondu ct w oul d li ke ly

de te r a pe rs on o f ordinary firm ness from engaging in such speech; and (3) there is a c ausal
re la tio nshi p be tw ee n th e re ta liator y a ct ionand the pr ote ct ed

spe ec h. S ee Be nne ttBe nnett v. Hendr ix , 423 F.3d 1247 ( 11th Cir. 2005), was not a pr isoner re taliation 16 c a se ; r athe r, it i nv olv e d r e ta liatio n c la ims br ou g ht b y c iti zen s a g a ins t a

sh e ri ff fo r i nte rf e ri ngwi th their support of a

ref ere ndum, a Fir st Amendment ac tivity . Be nnett found the e lements of the ci t i z en s ’ r et al i at i o ncl ai mi n , am o n g o th er ca s es , C o n s t an t i n e v . R ec t o rs & V i s i t o rs o f G eo rge Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 499 ( 4th Cir. 2005), and Thadde us-X v. B latter, 175 F .3d 378, 396 (6th Cir. 1999), which involved a claim that prison administrators had r etaliated a g ainst an inm ate fo r e ng a g ingin F ir st Ame ndme nt a c tiv ity . 4 23 F .3 d at 12 50 -5 1. Da vis v. Un ite d St ate s, No. 07-14639, 2008 U.S. App. L exis 7957 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2008) ( unpublished), there afte r drew on Be nnett for the e lements of a c laim that prison administrators had re taliated ag ainst an inm ate be c a

us e of the inm ate ’s sp e e c h. Th e se e le me nts , a s se t out in the a bo ve te xt, are imp lic it in prisoner re taliation case s decide d prior to Davis. See , e.g ., Fa rrow v. West, 320 F .3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir. 2003). Smit h did not formally

invoke the DOC’s grieva nce pr ocedur es and ha s not contended 17 th at h e d id
. We n o n e th e le s s tr e at h is le tt e r a s p r e s e n ti n gth e tw o g r ie v an c e s d e s c r ib e d in th e te xt beca use it is appare nt that he wante d Assistant W arde n J ones to aff ord some re lief for

his fellow inm ate s and , in

pa rt ic ula r, fo r h im. 11 v. H endrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1250 , 1254 (11th Cir. 2005). 16 W e consider Sm ith’s le tter to Assistant W arden Jones to have been an exercise in speech. T he speech consisted of, for our purposes, tw o grievances 17 and the statem ents on which Jon es based his allegation s that Sm ith had vi olated Ru le s 41 and 5 7 of

A dm ini str at ive Re gul at ion403 – st at em en ts tha t S m ith adm itt ed w er e a “ ba d c hoi ce of

w or ds. ” T he gr ie vanc es w er e: ( 1) inm at es , li ke Sm ith , w ho h av e “ co m

pr om ise d im

m une sy ste m s” and are sus ce pti ble to “p n e u mo n i a , ” ar e f

o r c e dt o “ l e a v e th e wa rm d o rm . . . g o o u t s i d e i n th i rt ysom ething d egree tem

peratures, we aring subst andard clothing , w ith no shelter fr om the w int er -l ike c ondi tio ns, ” an d ( 2) S m ithw as “ be ing f ed adie t c om

pose d of 95% starch when [Jones] knows that [he] is a diabetic.” T hese two grievance sI f the he aring s befor e Of fice r Davis were transcr ibed, the tra nscripts wer e not 18 prese nted to the district court a nd made pa

rt of the r ecor d. The re cord doe s indicate, howe ver, that J ones told Davis that the letter contained se vera l statements that he viewe d as insubordination. 12 co ns ti tu te d p ro te ct edsp eech
. T he Ru le 41 c harg e w as ba se d onthe f al se state m en t tha t the pr iso n adm ini str at ionne ed le ssl y de ci de d to va cc inate a ll pr iso ne rs ( inc lud ing S m ith ) fo r sy phi lis in 1999
. T he Ru le 57 c harg e w as ba se d onthe se state m en ts: “ May be y ou shou ld b e fo rc ed

to stand aro und out sid e, uns he lte re d, in thi rty -e igh t de gr ee s, w ith
a 10- 15 M PH br ee ze blo w ing
. S ee howy ou’ d li ke it
. ” A cc or din g to his te sti m ony be fo re he ar ing of

fi ce r D av is, Jon es c onsi de re d othe r state m en ts a s a ct s of insub ordination as w ell: “ What is the true m otive behin d the m adness? If I get sic k to the poi nt o f dy ing , w oul d it m atte r? O r is tha t the ge ne ra l i de a? I t’ s a really goodway

to lim it the pop ulation in the prison s! .
. . W ith the way we are being treated, this institu tion sh ouldforever be branded a test-bed for hum an experim entation . .
. . Rem em ber the infam ous Tuskegee Study ?” Whether 18 the se state m en ts, w hic h w er e fo und to b e fa lse and i nsub or din at e, sho uld have
re ce ive d F ir st A m en dm en t pr ote ct ionis pr obl em at ic al
. T he answ er de pe nds on whe th er Ru le s 4 1 a nd57 am ou nt edto va li d l im it at io ns on th e ex erci se of s pe ech
. B.Smit h has not contende d to the contra ry . Moreove r, he ha s not claimed that the rule s 19 are unconstitutional on their fac e or c ould not validly apply to the speec h J ones cited in the disciplinary

repor ts alleg ing violations of Rules 41 and 57. 13 “ Runnin g a prison is an ino rdinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the com m itm ent of resources. ” T urner v. Safle y , 482 U. S. 78, 84-5, 107 S. Ct. 2254 , 2259, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (198 7). Prison officials are the re fo re “ ac co rd ed

latit ude in the a dm ini str at ionof pr iso n a ff

ai rs . ” Cr uz v. Be to, 405 U
. S. 319 , 321 , 92 S
. Ct
. 107 9, 108 1, 31 L
. E d. 2d 2 63 ( 1972 ). T his latit ude includes “ the withdraw al or lim itation o f m any [inm ate] privileges and right s.” Pe ll v. P ro cunie r, 417 U
. S. 817 , 822 , 94 S
. Ct
. 280 0, 280 4, 41 L
. E d. 2d 4 95 (1 974) ( quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T his m eans tha t an in m at e’ s F ir st A m en dm en t r igh t t o f

re e spe ec h is not

pr ote ct ed

if a ff or din g pr ote ct ionw oul d be inc onsi ste nt w iththe inm at e’ s “ status a s apr iso ne r or w iththe le git im at e pe no lo gi cal ob

jecti ve s o f th e co rrec ti on s s y st em .” Id
. Ru le s 41 and 5 7 are r ea sona bly r el at ed to le git im at e pe nol ogi ca l i nte re sts
an d th er ef

or e va lid li m itatio ns o n in m at e spe ec h. S m ith ’ s f al se and 19 insub ordinate rem arks fell w ithin the rules’ proscriptions and, ac cordingly , w ere not pr ote ct ed
. A s th e co urt i n T ha dde us- X state d, “ if apr iso ne r vio la te s a le git im at e pr iso n r eg ulatio n, he is not e nga ge d in‘ pr ote ct ed

c ondu ct , ’ an d c an not pr oc ee d be y ond ste p on e. ” 175 F. 3d at 39 5. I n sh ort, S m ith ’ s f al se and14

in su bo rd in at e rem ark s fa il edto est ab li sh th e fi rs t el em en t o f a ret al ia ti on cla im
. Ac cordingly , to prevail on a c laim for r etaliation, and to resist summ ary j udgm en t, S m ithha d to r el y on the arg um en t tha t the de fe ndants r et al ia te d a ga ins t h i m fo r p re s en t i n g th e t wo g ri ev an ce s we ci t ed ab o v e. He s at i s fi ed th e c l ai m ’s fi rs t e le m en t, a s th e gr ie vanc es a m ount ed to pr ote ct ed

spe ec h, so the que sti on be co m es w he the r the e vid en ce sup porte d th e se co nd and thir d e le m en ts, a s se t ou t in B en ne tt. T he se co nd e le m en t r equir ed S m ithto showthat the dis ci pli ne he
re ce ive d “ w oul d li ke ly

de te r a [p ri sone r] of

or din ar y f irm ne ss” f ro m c om pla ini ng ab out the c ondi tio ns o f his c onf ine m en t. B enne tt, 423 F
. 3d at 12 54. Whe the r the discipli ne “ would likely

deter” presents an objec tive standard and a factual inquir y . W e co nc lud e that, in thi s c as e, the sta ndard w as m et . Whe the r Sm ith pr es en te d e noug h to w ith stand s um m ar y j udgm en t thus de pe nds on whe the r he
sa tis fi ed Be nne tt’ s th ir d e le m en t, c au sa tio n – a c au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n hi s
co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edsp eech an d t he di sc ip li ne he rece iv ed
. C. The c ausal connection in quiry asks whether the def

endants were subj ec tiv el y

m oti va te d to dis ci pli ne be ca use S m ithc om

pla ine d of

som e of the conditi ons of his confinem ent. T haddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 399. Specif ically , what
m otivated Jo nes to prepare the “ Incident Report” and subm it it to Mosl ey ? W hatNote that Smith did notsue Davis – probably beca use he w as just doing his job. But 20 that w ou ld s e e m to be the c a se wi th S c ony e rs a s w e ll. B oth we re a pp ointe d b y

Mo sle y – D avis to handle the he aring , Scony ers to re view Davis’s decision. Smit h contends that, in g rantingthe def endants’ summar

y judgme nt on his retaliation 21 claim, the district cour

t erre d beca

use it resolved the subjective motivation issue under the burden- shifting f

ormula ar ticulated in Texas Depa

rtment of Community

Affa irs v. Bur dine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. C t. 1089, 67 L . Ed. 2d 207 (1981), r ather than the Mt. Hea lthy

formula. Assuming a

rguendo that Smith is corr ect, it is of no moment beca use Smith’s case f

ails under Mt. Healthy
. Un de r t he Mt. He a lthy

a pp ro a c h, if

the g ov e rnme nt o ff

ic ia l “ c an p ro ve that [he ] wo uld 22 have taken the a dverse action in the abse nce of the plaintiff’s pr otected c onduct, [he] cannot be held liable.” T haddeus- X, 175 F.3d at 388 n.4 (citingdecisions of the F irst, Second, Fif th, and 15 m otivated Mos ley

to authorize Jones to file the rule- violatio n charges? What
m otivated Scony ers to aff irm Davis’s dec ision s recom m ending the disciplin e? 20 A nd, f ina lly , w ha t m oti va te d M osl ey to ad opt the r ec om

m en da tio n and p ut i t i nto
e f f e c t ? A s th e T ha dde us- X c ourt no te d, m ost c ourts r es olv e thi s su

bj ec tiv e
m ot iv at io n i ss ue un de r th e Mt . Healt hy bu rd en -s hi fti ng for m ul a. Id. at 39 9 n .14
. 21 Se e ge ne ra lly

Mt
. H ea lth y

Ci ty S ch
. D ist
. Bd
. of

E duc
. v. D oy le , 429 U
. S. 274 , 97 S. Ct . 56 8, 5 0 L. Ed. 2 d 4 71 (19 77 ). At a t ria l h el d u nd er t he Mt . Healt hy form ul a, [o ] nc e the pla int if

f ha s m et his bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng tha t hi s pr ote ct ed c ondu ct w as am oti va tin g f

ac tor be hin d any

harm , the burden of produ ction shi fts to the defendant. I f the defe ndant can showthat he w oul d have take n th e sam e ac tio n inthe abse nc e of the pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty , he is en tit le d to pr ev ai l on[ his m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawor pr ior to tr ia l on ] sum

m ar y j udgm en t. Thaddeus-X , 175 F. 3d at 399 (citation om itted). 22Seventh Circuits).

Smit h’s re sponses made no me ntion of his gr ievanc es. 23 There fore , Smit h contende d, the fa lse statement about the inoc ulations could not have 24 imp lic ate d Jon e s, or , a s in the de fi nit ion

of Rul e 41 , te nd e d to “ pr e

jud ic e ” him
. I t is obvious t hat the re taliation claim ag ainst Scony ers is meritless. Our rema ining 25 discussion relates only

to Mosley

and Jones. 16 Whe the r a re as ona

ble j ur y c oul d f ind that S m ith ’ s gr ie vanc es w er e the
m oti va tin g f

ac tor be hin d th e de fe ndants ’ a ct ion s is ac los e que sti on. S m ith introdu ced no direct evidence that they we re, and there is nothin g in his responses to Jon es’ s allegations th at even suggests that he thoug ht the charges we re a m ere pretext – that they

had been brough t in retaliation for his grievances. H e pled 23 gui lty to the ins ubor din at ionc harg e, and h e atte m pte d to e va de the f

al se state m en t charge by say ing th at Jones was not at the prison when, in 1999, the inm ates w ere ino cu la te d f

or sy phi lis and the re fo re c oul d no t have c onsi de re d th e fa lse state m en t
as havin g be endir ec te d to him
. A s f or S co ny er s, his r ole w as li m ite d to 24
re vie w ing D av is’ s de ci sio n; h e ha d pl ay ed no r ole in the de ci sio n to pr ose cu te Sm ithf or the r ule vio la tio ns. 25 W e as sum e w ith out

de ci din g th at

ar ea sona

ble f ac t f ind er c oul d in fe r fr om the c ir cum stanc es , take n a s aw hol e, that the le tte r’ s pr es en ta tio n of the gr ie vanc es
w as am oti va tin g f

ac tor in Mos le y

and J one s’ s de ci sio n to go f or w ar d w iththe charges. Bec ause the rec ord had been closed bythe tim e the district court17

ad dr es se d th e de fe ndants ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, the que sti on f or the
co urt un de r Mt
. H ea lth y

be cam e w he the r a re as ona ble f ac t f ind er , aj ur

y , w oul d ha ve to fi nd tha t the de fe ndants w oul d have dis ci pli ne d S m ith“ ev enin the
ab s e n c e o f

th e p r o t e c t e dc o n du c t , ” i
. e . , th e s ub mi s s i o n o f g r i e v a n c e s . M t . He a l t h y, 429 U
. S. a t 28 7, 97 S
. Ct
. a t 57 6; T ha dde us- X , 175 F
. 3d at 38 8 n. 4. F or us, the
answer to that questi on is clear; Mosley and Jones would h ave proceeded a s they did – to charge S m ith with violatio ns of Rules 41 and 5 7 – even if his letter had not c ont ai ne d w ha t a

ppe ar ed to be le git im at e gr ie vanc es . O bj ec tiv e pr iso n adm ini str at or s st an din g inMo sle y and J one s’ s sh oe s w oul d a ssum e that the gis t of
w ha t S m ithsa id i n hi s le tte r, and the langua ge he e m plo y ed , w hic h r ee ke d of d i s re s p ec tfo r t h e a d m i n i s t ra t o rs ’ au t h o ri t y, wo u l db e n o i s ed ab o u tth e p ri s o n ’s popu lation and, if ignored, could seriouslyim pede their ability

to m aintain order
an d t hu s ac hi ev e th e in st it ut io n’s p en ol og ic al ob jecti ve s. T he j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.