Opinion ID: 147330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retaliatory Discipline Claim

Text: “The First Amendment forbids prison officials from retaliating against prisoners for exercising the right of free speech.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1248 (11th Cir. 2003). An inmate raises a First Amendment claim of retaliation if he shows that the prison official disciplined him for filing a grievance or lawsuit concerning the conditions of his imprisonment. Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869 F.2d 1467, 1468 (11th Cir. 1989). To establish a retaliation claim, the inmate must show, inter alia, a causal connection between his protected conduct and the prison official’s action. Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1248-49. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, after Jemison filed a lawsuit against Mitchell on April 14, 2009, Mitchell filed a false disciplinary report on April 21, 2009 accusing Jemison of flooding D-block dormitory. Furthermore, Jemison’s complaint alleges that when Mitchell learned of the lawsuit, he “vowed to retaliate.” Even assuming arguendo that these allegations are insufficient to state a facially plausible claim, Jemison’s objection to the R&R, construed liberally, asked for leave to amend his complaint to allege additional facts showing Mitchell knew of the lawsuit before he filed the disciplinary report. Specifically, Jemison claimed 7 that Mitchell asked him about the details of the lawsuit on April 16, 2010.4 This proposed allegation plus the short, seven-day time period between the filing of Jemison’s lawsuit and the filing of the allegedly false disciplinary report are sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the latter motivated the former. Given that allowing Jemison to amend his complaint would not have been futile, under our Bank rule, the district court should have allowed Jemison leave to amend his complaint rather than dismissing it with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Jemison’s due process claim against Keyes. However, we vacate the district court’s dismissal as to Jemison’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Mitchell and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 4 On appeal, Jemison contends that even if Mitchell had not yet been served, Mitchell nonetheless knew of the lawsuit before he filed the disciplinary report because he told Jemison he knew about it. Jemison suggests that Mitchell may have learned of the lawsuit because prison officials review outgoing mail. Jemison also clarifies that it was when Mitchell asked him about the lawsuit that Mitchell threatened to retaliate. 8