Opinion ID: 800677
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assistant Deputy Warden Michael Singleton

Text: Singleton's sole act that could be tied to King's increase in security was approving the backdated security screen created by Chaffee. The district court found that he had no participation in the decision to reclassify King to Level III and was bound by the decision from Central Office. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at . Although we agree that Singleton did nothing to cause the initial decision to increase King's security, this alone does not relieve Singleton of liability. As the individual signing the backdated security screen approving King's transfer to the increased security facility, Singleton cannot escape liability if in following this order he knew or should have known that he was implementing punishment for King's exercise of his rights. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393. [19] Here, however, the district court did not find (and the record does not suggest), that Singleton had any knowledge or should have had knowledge that the revised security screen was backdated or that the statement that prisoner manipulates other prisoners to be disruptive/needs higher level of security was in response to any particular activity, let alone King's participation in protected conduct. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 212:2-21) (Singleton's testimony regarding lack of knowledge and general practice not to backdate). Nothing on record suggested that Singleton was aware of any underlying constitutional violation that he could be deemed to have assisted in signing the screen, nor does the screen on its own suggest a constitutional violation is occurring. [20] Singleton also helped resolve in King's favor the February misconduct ticket reported by Bonnie Lewis. R. 172 (Trial Tr. II at 218:20-24). Nothing suggests that Singleton knew or should have known that the increase in security level was a violation of King's constitutional rights. On this record, we cannot say that the district court's conclusion that Singleton lacked a retaliatory motive was clear error. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment in favor of Singleton.