IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30291

Summary Calendar

DERRICK SCOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LONNIE NAIL; JAMIE FUSSELL; ANGIE HUFF; JAMES M. LEBLANC,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:10-CV-1776

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derrick Scott, Louisiana prisoner # 126372, appeals the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment for the defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

Scott alleged that he had been denied due process during a prison disciplinary 

proceeding when he was not allowed to call witnesses, that he was denied due 

process because the prison disciplinary rule at issue failed to provide fair 

warning that his conduct could result in a violation, and that the defendants’ 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30291 Document: 00512894776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-30291

denial of his request to call witnesses was in retaliation for previous litigation 

he had filed.

As an initial matter, Scott moved to strike the defendants’ brief or for an 

extension of time to file a reply brief because he had not yet received a copy of 

the defendants’ brief. Scott has submitted a proposed reply brief, which 

indicates that he did receive the defendants’ brief; therefore, we deny his 

motion to strike. However, Scott’s proposed reply brief was submitted almost 

two weeks after it was due, making it untimely. See FED. R. APP. P. 31(a)(1). 

Although Scott has requested an extension of time to file a reply, this court 

“greatly disfavors all extensions of time for filing reply briefs.” 5TH CIR. R.

31.4.4. Scott’s proposed reply brief effectively repeats the substantive 

arguments that he set forth in his primary brief. Because his reply brief would 

not assist in the resolution of the instant appeal, the motion for an extension 

of time to file a reply also is denied. See 5TH CIR. R. 31.4.4.

We review the district court’s summary judgment dismissal de novo, 

under the same standards used by the district court. See Hernandez v. Yellow 

Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 650 (5th Cir. 2012). “Summary judgment is proper 

if the pleadings and evidence show there is no genuine issue of material fact 

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.; see FED.

R. CIV. P. 56(a). We may affirm summary judgment on any ground evident in 

the record. Jones v. Lowndes County, Miss., 678 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2012).

A prisoner who seeks to invoke the Due Process Clause’s procedural 

protections must establish that his life, liberty, or property is at stake. 

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). A prisoner’s protected liberty 

interests are “generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not 

exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to 

protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes 

2

 Case: 14-30291 Document: 00512894776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-30291

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary 

incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (internal 

citations omitted. In the instant case, Scott’s disciplinary conviction resulted 

in ten days of disciplinary segregation. We have held that “administrative 

segregation, without more, does not constitute a deprivation of a 

constitutionally cognizable liberty interest.” Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 

(5th Cir. 1995). Because this punishment did not trigger due process 

protections, Scott has not shown that his due process rights were violated. See

Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999).

Scott also alleged that the defendants denied his request to call 

witnesses in retaliation for his prior litigation activities, including suits filed 

against these same defendants. A prison official may not retaliate against an 

inmate for accessing the courts or using a prison grievance procedure. See 

Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1046 (5th Cir. 1986). To state a valid claim for 

retaliation under § 1983, a prisoner must allege (1) his invocation of a specific 

constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner 

due to his exercising that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) a causal 

connection. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999). Claims 

of retaliation are regarded with skepticism and are carefully scrutinized by the 

courts. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Conclusional 

assertions of retaliation are insufficient; to establish a claim for retaliation, a 

prisoner must produce either direct evidence of retaliation or at least “allege a 

chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” See id.

Although Scott presented some evidence of past litigation involving these 

defendants, he failed to present evidence establishing the existence of a 

genuine issue of material fact regarding whether these defendants were aware 

of any litigation pending against them at the time of the disciplinary hearing. 

3

 Case: 14-30291 Document: 00512894776 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-30291

We also conclude that Scott has not shown that the refusal of his request to 

call live witnesses at a disciplinary hearing constituted a retaliatory adverse 

act sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her 

constitutional rights. See Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 686 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Finally, we conclude that Scott has not shown that the defendants had an 

intent to retaliate against him by presenting direct evidence of retaliatory 

intent or a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be 

inferred. See Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLEES’ BRIEF DENIED; 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF DENIED. 

4

 Case: 14-30291 Document: 00512894776 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2015