A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r30,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

GE OR GE R. M AL L AR D,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t,
v. B O B T O M L IN S O N , P lant M an ag er, O C I; F R E D P R IC E , S u p erv isor, O C I,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6019 ( D. C. No. 0 4
- CV
- 1 3 8 2
- T) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e T AC HA , C hi ef J udge, O’ BR I EN and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l ant , G eor ge R . M al l ar d, an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s oner , appea l s fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s compl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983. T he
c o mp l a i n ta l l e g e d t h a twh i l e M r . M a l l a r d wa s a p r i s o n l a b o r e rfo rOk l a h o ma-2-

C or r ect i onal I ndus t r i es ( O C I ) , t w o of hi s s upervi s or s , defe ndant s B ob T om l i ns on a n d F re d P ri c e , im p ro p e rl yh a d h im tr a n s fe rr e d to a lo w e r p a y in g jo b . M r . M al l ar d s t at ed thathe w as t r ans ferr ed bec aus e he i s bl ack a nd beca us e he ha d pr evi ous l yfi l ed a gr i evanc e r egar di ng M r . Pr i ce. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed
s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s and M r . M al l ar d appea l ed. E xer ci s i ng our j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m. BA CK GR OUND U n d er R u le 56 (c) o f th e F ed era l R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re, sum m ary ju d g m e n t sh a ll b e g ra n ted to a p a rty i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how that t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng p a r t yi s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. N evert hel es s , a fa ctual di s put e i s onl y“genui ne” i f the evi dence and the i nfer ence s dr aw n t her efr om , w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the
nonm ovi ng par t y , ar e “s uch thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d r eturn a ver di ctforthe
nonm ovi ng par t y . ” A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ). A s h e ld b yth is c o u rt: T he nonmovi ng par t ym aynotr es tupon t he mer e al l egat i ons or deni al s of [hi s ] pl eadi ng. T he nonmovi ng partym us tgo bey ond the pleadi ng s and est abli sh, t hroug h ad m i ssi ble evi den ce, that there i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatm us tbe r es ol ved bythe tr i erof fac t . T he mer e exi s t ence of a s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence i n s uppor tof the pl ai nt i ff’ s pos i t i on w i l l be i ns uffi ci ent ; ther e mustbe evi dence on w hi ch the j ur ycoul d r eas onabl yfi nd forthe pl ai nt i ff.T he part i es r efe rt o t he var i ous s ect i ons of O C I as ei ther“depa r t m ent s ” or 1 “ p rojec ts.” It a p p e a rs lik e lyth a t M r. M a llard w o rk e d in th e sa m e p a in t o r sta in bo oth w hil e w orki ng for the fu rni ture r eno vati on and ho usi ng proj ect s. Itis un clea r ho w this st atem en t com p o rt s w ith M r. M all ard ’s 2 acknow l edgmenti n ot herpart s of the r ecor d and on appe al t hathe has been “demot ed” tw i ce: once, i n 2001, fr om t he furni tur e r enovat i on pr oj ectt o the hous i ng pr oj ect , and aga i n, i n 2004, fr om the hous i ng pr oj ectt o the modul ar f u rn itu re p rojec t. -3- Sal ehpoorv. Shahi npoor , 3 5 8 F .3 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). W e ar e aw ar e, how ever , t hat“[a ] pr o s e l i t i gant ’ s pl eadi ngs ar e t o be cons trued l i ber al l yand hel d t o a l es s s t r i ngents t andar d than form al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed by l aw y er s . ” Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). M r . M al l ar d began w or ki ng forO C I i n 1996 i n i t s “furni tur e r enovat i on” p rojec t. T h e f

u rn itu re re n o v a tio n p rojec t clo se d in 2 0 0 1 a n d h e w a s tra n sfe rre d to t he “hous i ng pr oj ect . ” H e w as s ubs equent l ytr ans ferr ed fr om the hous i ng pr oj ect to th e m o d u lar f

u rn itu re p rojec t o n A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 . R ., D o c . 1 5 , A ttac h . 2 a t 9 1 (M r. M a llard ’s R e q u e st to S taff ); Id. , A t t ach. 4 at1. T he pr opr i etyof the fi nal t r ans feri s ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. A c c o rd in g to M r. M a llard , h e a n d “ se v e ra l o f [ h is] c o -w o rk e rs, in m a tes : C huck S haw , Ji m m y B urks, C harl i e W arner and R obert T urner , w er e moved fr om O C I Fur ni tur e R enovat i on t o M odul arFur ni tur e, and R on F i s her w as m o v e d f ro m M o d u lar F u rn itu re to H o u sin g .” R ., D o c . 2 2 a t 2 a n d D o c . 3 2 a t 2 (b o ld fa c e in o rig in a l). H e sta ted th a t th e tra n sfe rs “ [ lef t] o n lyth e w h ite in m a te 2
w or ker s i n t hos e D epart m ent s , ” w i thouti dent i fy i ng t o w hi ch depa r t m ent s he w as-4-

re fe rrin g . R ., D o c . 2 2 a t 2 . F u rth e r, o f th e in m a tes m o v e d , h e w a s d ro p p e d to “paygr ade four ” w hi l e the other s r emai ned at“paygr ade f i ve” de s pi t e the fa ct that h e w as th e m o st ex p erien ce d w o rke r. M r . M al l ar d s t at ed thatM r . Pr i ce w as hi s s upervi s oratO C I and that M r . T om l i ns on w as t he pl antm anage r . H e di d not , how ever , s peci fi cal l ydes cr i be
w hatr ol e, i f any , eac h pl ay ed i n hi s tr ans fer . H e ac know l edged thatw hen he compl ai ned aboutt he paycuthe:
w as t ol d byD efe ndant s t hatdue t o the r educt i on i n hous i ng they m oved s ever al w or ker s fr om H ous i ng t o M odul ar , and thatPayG r ade Fi ve ( 5) i s a dedi cat ed pos i t i on forfl oorl eads –thatno one tra n sfe rre d w o u ld b e m o v e d a t p a yg ra d e fiv e (5 ) d u e to th e ir at t em pti ng t o av oid posi t i on s i n H ou si ng bytransfer s. Id . at3. M r . M al l ar d, how ever , di s put ed thi s expl anat i on, s t at i ng that“ther e have been s ever al O C I J ob m ovement s / demot i ons s i m i l ar( i f noti dent i cal ) t o [hi s ] J ob
m ovement / demot i on w her e fe l l ow i nm at e w or ker s di d notl os e thei rPaygr ade F ive (5 ) st atus d u ri n g the tran sfe r an d co m p let elyseg reg ated the fo rm er w o rke rs ar ea w i t h w hi t e co- w or ker s onl y . ” Id . at4. A ccor di ng t o M r . M al l ar d, the t r ans feroccurr ed notonl yforr aci al r eas ons butal s o i n r et al i at i on forhi s “bei ng vocal l yout s poken about[the defendant s ’ ] admi ni s tr at i ve unfa i rnes s . ” Id . at3.“ A Mar t i nezr epor ti s a j udi ci al l yauthor i zed i nves t i gat i ve r eportpr epar ed 3 bypr i s on offi ci al s t o hel p t he courtdet erm i ne i f a pr o s e pr i s oner ’ s al l egat i ons have a nyfac tual orl egal bas i s . ” Si m ki ns v. B r uce , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 0 n .2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). N one of thes e i nm at es w er e al l ow ed t o s t ayatpaygr ade f i ve. 4 -5- A Mar t i nezre p o rt w a s p re p a re d re g a rd in g M r. M a llard ’s c o m p lain ts cont ai ni ng, among ot herevi dence , the affi davi t s of M r . Pr i ce a nd M r . T om l i ns on. 3 M r . T om l i ns on al s o s ubm i t t ed a s econd a ffi davi tas partof the defendant s ’ fi nal
m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W h ile M r. P ric e a v e rre d th a t h e p layed n o ro le in M r . M al l ar d’ s tr ans fer , M r . T om l i ns on s t at ed thatM r . M al l ar d w as t r ans ferr ed as p a rt o f a n re d u c tio n in fo rc e (R IF ) n e c e s s ita te d b yd e c re a s e d c u s to m e r o rd e rs . A ccor di ng t o t he Mar t i nezr eportand M r . T om l i ns on’ s aff i davi t s , O C I ’ s hous i ng d e p a rtm e n t sh ip p e d $ 2 ,4 0 5 ,4 6 1 w o rth o f p ro d u c ts in fisc a l y e a r 2 0 0 3 , b u t o n ly $607, 541 w or t h of pr oduct s i n fi s cal y ear2004. Si m i l ar l y , t he numberof i nm at es empl oy ed byO C I w as cutfr om 152 i n fi s cal y ear2003 t o 62 byt he end of J anuary2005. T he r ecor d s how s t hatas partof thi s R I F fourC auca s i an i nm at es and s even A fr i can- A m er i can i nm at es , i ncl udi ng M r . M al l ar d, w er e tr ans ferr ed out of the hous i ng depart m enton A pr i l 16, 2004; a C auca s i an i nm at e w as t r ans ferr ed 4 on J une 16, 2004; and one N at i ve A m er i can i nm at e, one C auca s i an i nm at e, one H i s pani c A m er i can i nm at e, and one A fr i can- A m er i can i nm at e w er e tr ans ferr ed onT he r ecor d does nots peci fyhow t he r emai ni ng for ce r educt i on w as 5 ac co m p li sh ed , w h ethe r m o re trans fe rs oc cu rred , o r w h ethe r som e inm ates w ere lai d -off a lt o g ethe r. -6- J anuary 16, 2005. T he Mar t i nezr eportcont ai ns a copyof w hatappea r s t o be a 5
m e m o d a ted A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 4 , li stin g th e e lev e n in m a tes th a t w e re to b e re a ss ig n e d to t he modul arfurni tur e pr oj ects t art i ng A pr i l 16, 2004. Fourof the i nm at es fr om t he l i s t , Fl or ence Fi s her , R onni e D unfor d, R andal l K i nnaman, and M r . M al l ar d, w er e tr ans ferr ed t o the modul arfurni tur e pr oj ectfr om t he hous i ng p aint b o o th. O f th ese fo u r, M r. K inn am an is C au ca sian an d the o ther thre e a re A fr i can- A m er i can. T w o of the i nm at es , M r . M al l ar d and M r . Fi s her , w er e atpay gr ade f i ve and ha d t hei rw ages cut . D es pi t e the fa ctt hatM r . M al l ar d’ s w ages w er e cutt en ce nt s an hour , he w as s t i l l m aki ng tw entyt o thi r tycent s an hour
m or e than the new pos i t i on us ual l ypai d. T he one i nm at e w ho r emai ned w or ki ng i n t he pai ntboot h, R obertW i l s on, a C auca s i an, w as r et ai ned bec aus e he w as author i zed t o oper at e the hous i ng depart m entw oodw or ki ng equi pm enti n addi t i on to w o rkin g in the p aint b o o th. A rou n d the s am e p eriod in ti m e a s the tr an sfe rs w er e occ ur r i ng, R on Fi s her , anotherC auca s i an i nm at e, w as t r ans ferr ed i nt o the hous i ng depart m entbeca us e he w as t he s ol e i nm at e t o pos s es s cert ai n des i gn soft w are s kil l s and co uld prepare the d epart m ent’ s desi gn draw i ng s. A s t o t he r et al i at i on cl ai m , M r . T om l i ns on acknow l edged that
a p p r o x i ma t e l yn i n e mo n t h s b e fo r e t h e t r a n s fe r , M r . M a l l a r d h a d c o me t o h i m, i nform ed hi m t hatM r . Pr i ce w as gi vi ng s om e i nm at es extr a hour s of w or k i n l i eu-7-

of aw ar di ng bonus es , and compl ai ned thathe fe l the w as bei ng di s cr i m i nat ed agai ns tbeca us e he w as notbei ng gi ven anyextr a hour s . M r . T om l i ns on averr ed t hatw hen he w as t ol d t hatbonus hour s w er e bei ng gi ven he s t opped the pr act i ce. A N A L Y S IS M r . M al l ar d cl ai m s t hathi s tr ans fert o m odul arfurni tur e ( 1) w as r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of the Four t eenth A m endmentr i ghtt o equal p ro tec tio n , an d (2 ) w a s re talia tio n fo r h is fili n g a n a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e in
v io la tio n o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. 1. M r . Pr i ce I n aw ar di ng s um m aryj udgm entt o M r . Pr i ce on both cl ai m s , the di s tr i ct cour tcorr ect l ynot ed thatM r . M al l ar d di d notdenyM r . Pr i ce’ s averm entthathe p lay ed n o role in th e tran sfe r. S ince M r. M all ard h ad to sh o w M r. P ri ce ’s p e rso n a l in v o lv e m e n t in th e a lleg e d d isc rim in a tio n o r re talia tio n in o rd e r to e s ta b lis h p e rs o n a l lia b ility u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , G r i m s l ey v . MacKay , 93 F. 3d 6 7 6 , 6 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ), su m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop er. 2. M r . T om l i ns on–R aci al D i s cr i m i nat i on I n aw ar di ng s um m aryj udgm entt o M r . T om l i ns on on the r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , t he di s t r i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed the bur den- s hi ft i ng fr amew or k s etfor t h i n McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 411 U . S. 792, 802- 04 (1 9 7 3 ), a s a d a p te d fo r u s e in a R IF c o n te x t.-8-

W hi l e McD on nellD ou glas in v o lv e d a T itl e V II c laim fo r fa ilu re to h i r e , t h e a n a l yt i c a l f

r a me wo r k i tp i o n e e r e d a p p l i e s e q u a l l yt o c l a i ms br oughtpur s uantt o s ect i on 1981, as w el l as t o § 1983 cl ai m s bas ed on al l egat i ons of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of the Equal P ro tec tio n C lau se o f

th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. E n g lis h v . C o lo . D e

p ’to f C o r r . , 248 F. 3d 1002, 1007 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on o m itte d ). I n or dert o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent , a pl ai nt i ff r el y i ng on McD on nellD ou glas b e a r s a n i n i t i a l b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r i ma fa cie c ase inten d ed to elim inate the m o st co m m o n n o n d iscri m inato ry r eas ons thatm i ghtacc ountforthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on. O nce th e p lain tiff

h a s e sta b lish e d a p rim a fa c ie c a se , the b u rd e n th e n sh if ts to the em p loy er to a rt iculate so m e leg it im ate, no n d iscri m inato ry re a s o n fo r t a k in g a n a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n a g a in s t th e p la in tiff. I f the defendants ucce s s ful l ym eet s i t s bur den of pr oduct i on, the b u rd e n sh if

ts b a c k to th e p lain tiff to p u t fo rth e v id e n c e su fficie n t to a llo w a ju ry to fin d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’ s re a s o n is p re te x tu a l, e. g. , t hati ti s unw or t hyof bel i ef. Id . at 1 0 0 8 (c itatio n , q u o tatio n , an d a ltera tio n o m itt e d ). G e n e ra lly , in o rd e r to es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove “( 1) he bel ongs t o a pr ot ect ed cl as s ; ( 2) he w as qual i fi ed forhi s j ob; ( 3) des pi t e hi s qual i fi cat i ons , he w as di s char ged; and ( 4) t he j ob w as notel i m i nat ed af t erhi s di s char ge. ” Id . In a n R IF cont ext , how ever , s i nce the pl ai nt i ff c an notpr ove thathi s j ob w as notel i m i nat ed
a f ter h is d isc h a rg e , the fo u rth e lem e n t is m o d ified to re q u ire th e p lain tiff to e sta b lish “ th a t th e re is s o m e e v id e n c e th e e m p lo y e r in ten d e d to d isc rim in a te agai ns t[hi m ] i n r eac hi ng i t s R I F deci s i on. ” B eai r d v. Seagat e Tech. , Inc. , 1 4 5 F .3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). In th is c a se , this fo u rth e lem e n t co u ld-9-

have be en es t abl i s hed byci r cumst ant i al evi dence thatM r . M al l ar d w as tr eat ed le s s fa v o ra b ly th a n C a u c a s ia n e m p lo y e e s d u ri n g th e R IF . Id . T he di s t r i ctcour thel d t hatM r . M al l ar d had notes t abl i s hed he w as tr eat ed l es s favor abl yt han C auca s i an empl oy ees dur i ng the R I F and, even i f he ha d m ade
o u t his prim a fac ie ca se, he h ad n o t prese n ted e v iden ce that M r. T o m li n so n ’s
non- di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on w as a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on. W e agr ee. M r. M all ard fa il ed to resp o n d in a m ea n ing fu l w ayto M r. T o m li n so n ’s
a v e rm e n t th a t th e tr a n s fe r w a s n e c e s s a ry in o rd e r t o a v o id la y -o ffs d u ri n g th e R IF . H e di d notdi s put e thatt her e had be en a pr eci pi t ous dr op i n hous i ng depart m ent b u s in e s s o r t h a t th e w o rk fo rc e in th a t d e p a rt m e n t h a d b e e n d ra s tic a lly c u rt a ile d . I n fac t , i n hi s r es pons e t o t he s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, M r . M al l ar d di d not di r ect l ydi s put e oreven a ddr es s anyof the fa ctual fi ndi ngs i n the Mar t i nezre p o rt . In ste a d , h e sim p lyre sta ted th e c laim s c o n tain e d in h is a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, i n mo s tc a s e s wo r d fo rwo r d . He ma d e n o e ffo r tt o e x p l a i n wh o Ch u c k S h a w, J i m m yB ur ks , C har l i e W arnerand R obertT urner–the fourco- w or ker s w er e that he cl ai m ed w er e tr ans ferr ed w i t h hi m –w er e, w hatpos i t i ons theyhel d, w hen and t o w hatpos i t i ons t heyw er e tr ans ferr ed, and w hytheyw er e notnamed on t he
m emo l i s t i ng t he el even i nm at es tr ans ferr ed on A pr i l 16, 2004. H e al s o m ade no
e ffo rt to e x p lain w h yh e sta ted th a t th e se w e re th e o n lyp riso n e rs tra n sfe rre d o r to di s put e M r . T om l i ns on’ s averm entthatthe tr ans fer s w er e fr om acr os s the r aci al spect rum . F i nall y , he m ade n o att em pt t o inform the co urtw hich “dep artm ents ”M r. M a llard m a d e it a p ra c tice to in c lu d e a d e c lar a tio n a t th e e n d o f h is 6 d is tr ic t c o u rt filin g s th a t th e in fo rm a tio n c o n ta in e d in th e filin g s w a s tru e . -10- w e re lef t w ith o n lyw h ite w o rk e rs. A s to h is c u t in p a y , h is c o n c lu so rya v e rm e n ts t hathe w as t he onl yt r ans fer ee thatexper i ence d a paycutand that“ther e have been s ever al O C I J ob m ovement s / demot i ons s i m i l ar( i f noti dent i cal ) t o [hi s ] J ob
m ovement / demot i on w her e fe l l ow i nm at e w or ker s di d notl os e thei rpos i t i ons nor t hei rPaygr ade Fi ve ( 5) s t atus dur i ng the tr ans fer ” ar e unava i l i ng i n the abs ence of anydet ai l r egar di ng t he i dent i tyof thes e i nm at es orthei rr es pect i ve pr e- and pos t - t r ans ferpos i t i ons and paygr ades . I ti s i rr el evantthatM r . M al l ar d decl ar ed under penal t y of per

j ur y t hat hi s concl us or y al l egat i ons w er e true. L u jan v. Na t’ l 6 Wild li fe Fed ’n , 4 9 7 U .S . 8 7 1 , 8 8 8 (1 9 9 0 ) (h o ld in g th e p u rp o se o f R u le 5 6 (e ) is to
r equi r e pl ai nt i ff t o “s etfor t h s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng thatt her e i s a genui ne i s s ue fort r i al ” nott o s i m pl y“r epl ace concl us oryal l egat i ons of the compl ai ntorans w er w i t h concl us or yal l egat i ons of an a ffi davi t ”) . T her efor e, w e agr ee that M r . M al l ar d di d notpr ove thathe w as t r ans ferr ed forr aci al r eas ons and that , even i f he hadsh o w n d ispa rate tr ea tm en t, h e h ad n o t sho w n that M r. T o m li n so n ’s
n o n -discrim inato ryrea so n fo r th e R IF , the larg e los s o f b u sine ss, w as a m ere p re tex t. 3. M r . T om l i ns on–R et al i at i on A s forM r . M al l ar d’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m , i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that“[p] r i s on o ffici als m ayn o t r etali ate a g ains t or h ara ss an inm ate b ec au se o f th e inm ate’s-11-

exer ci s e of hi s r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s . ” G r een v . Johns on , 977 F. 2d 1383, 1389 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “I ti s [al s o] w el l es t abl i s hed thatan a c t in re talia tio n fo r th e e x e rc ise o f a c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted rig h t is a c tio n a b le under42 U . S. C . Sect i on 1983 even i f the ac t , w hen t aken fora di ffe r entr eas on, w oul d have be en pr oper . ” Sm i th v. Mas chner , 899 F. 2d 940, 948 ( 10th C i r . 1990) (qu o tat ion s an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). In o rde r t o p rov e re tal iat ion , M r. M all ard had the bur den of s how i ng ( 1) t hathi s fi l i ng of a gr i evanc e aga i ns tM r . Pr i ce w as a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty , ( 2) thathi s tr ans fert o a l ow erpay i ng j ob
w as an i nj ur yt hatw oul d chi l l a per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om engagi ng i n t hat act i vi t yi n t he futur e, and ( 3) t hata s ubs t ant i al m ot i vat i ng fac t orforthe tr ans fer
w as M r. T om l i nson ’s desi re t o ret al i at e for the fil i ng of the gri evan ce aga i nst M r. P ri c e . Mi m i cs, Inc. v. Vi l l
. of An gel Fir e , 3 9 4 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e fi nd no faul tw i t h t he ar gum entthatan i nm at e’ s r i ghtt o fi l e gr i evanc es is c lea rlyp ro tec ted a n d a c u t in w a g e s o f th is typ e is a n inju ryth a t w o u ld c h ill a p e rso n o f

o rd in a ryfirm n e ss ’ w ill to file f u tu re g rie v a n c e s. H o w e v e r, as c o rre c tly hel d byt he di s t r i ctcourt , M r . M al l ar d pr es ent ed no evi dence fr om w hi ch a
r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have found thatthe tr ans ferw as s ubs t ant i al l ym ot i vat ed by
re talia tio n . A lth o u g h it i s tru e th a t “p ro o f o f a n o fficia l’s re talia to ryin ten t ra re ly
w i l l be s uppor t ed bydi r ectevi dence of s uch i nt ent , ” P oo l e v. C ou nty of O t ero , 271 F. 3d 955, 962 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) abr ogat ed on other grou nds by Hartm an v. Moo re , 126 S. C t . 1695 ( 2006) , her e i ti s pur e s uppos i t i on-12-

t hatM r . M al l ar d’ s t r ans ferw as s ubs t ant i al l ym ot i vat ed byhi s fi l i ng of the gr i evanc e i n ques t i on. F i rs t , t he g ri evan ce w as fi l ed n ot agai nstM r. T om l i nson bu tagainst M r . Pr i ce, w ho di d notpl aya r ol e i n the tr ans fer . Second, the gr i evanc e w as s us t ai ned i n t hatw hen M r . T om l i ns on w as appar ent l ym ade a w ar e of the aw ar di ng of bonus hour s t o i nm at es , he s t opped the pr act i ce. T hi r d, al m os tni ne mont hs pas s ed betw een the fi l i ng of the gr i evanc e and M r . M al l ar d’ s tr ans fer . Four th, t he tr ans ferw as par tof a RIF thats aw a r educt i on i n the w or kfor ce of the hous i ng depart m entfr om 152 t o 62, w i t h t en otheri nm at es tr ans ferr ed the s ame dayas M r. M a llard . In sh o rt, M r. M a llard p re se n ts n o e v id e n c e to tie h is g rie v a n c e to t h e d e c i s i o n t o t r a n s fe rh i m. CO NC L US I ON F o r th e re a so n s s e t fo rth a b o v e , the ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is A FFIRM E D . M r . M al l ar d’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on appea l w i thoutpr epaym entof
c o sts a n d fe e s is G R A N T E D , an d h e is re m in d e d th a t h e re m a in s o b lig a ted to
m ake pa r t i al paym ent s unt i l t he ent i r e fe e has been pa i d. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge