Opinion ID: 726135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Retaliatory Transfer Claim.

Text: 7 Prison officials may not punish an inmate because he exercises his constitutional right of access to the courts. Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 736-37 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2684, 129 L.Ed.2d 817 (1994). This prohibition against retaliatory punishment applies to transfers between prisons in a single State, and to transfers between state and federal prison systems under the Compact. See Sterling v. Wood, 68 F.3d 1124, 1126 (8th Cir.1995); Hazen v. Reagen, 16 F.3d 921, 925 (8th Cir.1994); Ponchik v. Bogan, 929 F.2d 419 (8th Cir.1991); Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Correction, 769 F.2d 502, 503 (8th Cir.1985). Therefore, although paragraph 24(b) of the Compact agreement between Arizona and Iowa provides that the sending state will retake any inmate upon request, the district court properly undertook to determine whether Iowa's decision to retransfer Sisneros was unconstitutionally retaliatory. Defendants correctly argue that inmates may be transferred from one prison to another for any constitutionally permissible reason, or for no reason at all. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46, 248 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1745-46, 1747 n. 9, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983). But a transfer in retaliation for exercising federal constitutional rights is actionable under § 1983. 8 In a retaliatory transfer case, the burden is on the prisoner to prove that but for an unconstitutional, retaliatory motive the transfer would have not occurred. Goff, 7 F.3d at 738. This is a but for test dealing with motive, not causation. In their depositions, defendants testified that Sisneros was returned to Arizona because he was unhappy at ISP, was an obnoxious and ungracious guest, and was unwilling to accept ISP's rules. The district court concluded that the only factual bases for these observations were Sisneros's lawsuits, and therefore the transfer was unconstitutionally retaliatory. We disagree. 9 The Fourth Circuit has noted, in the context of prison discipline, that inmate claims of unlawful retaliation must be treated with skepticism because [e]very act of discipline ... is by definition 'retaliatory' in the sense that it responds directly to prisoner misconduct. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc). There is a similar need to identify precisely when retaliation is unconstitutional in reviewing inmate transfers under the Compact. When the transferred inmate has filed one or more lawsuits against the transferring prison or its officials, and that litigation has caused the transfer, the essential inquiry is whether the decision to transfer was motivated by the fact that the inmate sued, or by the nature of the dispute underlying the lawsuit. If the substance of the inmate's claim makes it appropriate to transfer him under the Compact for rational penological reasons, the transfer does not become unconstitutional retaliation simply because the inmate made his claim known by filing a lawsuit. That was the essence of our decision in Sterling v. Wood, 68 F.3d at 1126-27--Sterling was sent back to the sending prison system because he had burdened the receiving institution with frivolous litigation, not because he had exercised his constitutional right of access to the courts. 10 This case again illustrates the distinction. In his lawsuits, Sisneros demanded the right to correspond in the Spanish and Apache languages, and to participate in ISP Native American ceremonies. Apparently, his former prison in Arizona had accommodated these desires. But at ISP, a State-wide rule required English-only correspondence. Regarding Native American ceremonies, ISP's Native American Consultant insisted that Sisneros furnish a BIA enrollment number. Sisneros demanded that ISP officials overrule the Consultant. But the consent decree leaves such issues to the Consultant's discretion, so ISP officials could not satisfy Sisneros's objections to the Consultant's interpretation of the decree. In these circumstances, the nature of Sisneros's claims--not simply the fact that he sued to enforce them--made it penologically appropriate to transfer him back to Arizona. Cf. Gomez v. Grossheim, 901 F.2d 686, 688 (8th Cir.1990) (no unlawful retaliation where [t]he transfers were directly related to system concerns). The Compact leaves Iowa free to decide that, if Sisneros is unhappy with rules that are appropriate for the Iowa inmate population, he should be returned to Arizona, where his needs can be more cost effectively accommodated. Thus, the district court erred in concluding that the summary judgment record disclosed only an unlawful retaliatory motive. 11 Defendants further argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Sisneros has failed to prove unconstitutional retaliation. Although summary judgment is not often appropriate when motive is at issue, the undisputed facts in this record arguably establish that Sisneros cannot satisfy Goff 's rigorous but for test because his transfer back to Arizona was motivated by rational penological concerns, not by the fact he had filed two lawsuits. Cf. Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271, 274-75 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 524, 133 L.Ed.2d 431 (1995). 12 But we need not decide whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of this claim. At this point in the litigation, Sisneros seeks only damages. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from any damage claim if they demonstrate 'the objective legal reasonableness of the[ir] action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.'  Latimore v. Widseth, 7 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1140, 114 S.Ct. 1124, 127 L.Ed.2d 433 (1994), quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The district court denied defendants qualified immunity, an issue we review de novo. See Moorman v. Thalacker, 83 F.3d 970, 972 (8th Cir.1996). At the time in question, the Compact agreement gave Iowa total discretion to send Sisneros back to Arizona. Sisneros had made it clear that he preferred Arizona's handling of his religious and language needs, and no prior case held that such a transfer would be contrary to clearly established law. In these circumstances, defendants' decision to transfer was objectively reasonable as a matter of law, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. See generally Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-19, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2737-39, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). 13 The decision of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter final judgment in favor of defendants. We commend the members of the University of Iowa College of Law Clinical Law Programs for their excellent representation of Mr. Sisneros. 14