Opinion ID: 614181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appeal of the Disciplinary Decision

Text: The district court did err, however, in dismissing the portion of Bumpus’s retaliation claim that was based upon his appeal of the disciplinary decision, which resulted in his removal from the landscaping detail, placement in “the hole,” and confiscation of his legal materials. In dismissing this claim, the district court erroneously relied upon assumptions not set forth in the complaint, namely that Bumpus was removed from landscaping detail because he was late on several occasions, and that the investigatory search that led to his placement in “the hole” and the confiscation of his legal materials was not pretextual. See Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that when considering a motion to dismiss the court limits its consideration to the pleadings and exhibits attached thereto). The four corners of Bumpus’s complaint do not contain any allegations supporting the district court’s assumptions. Additionally, Bumpus’s complaint was plausible on its face because there were no reasons provided for those actions alleged in the complaint, which would all constitute retaliatory conduct likely to deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected speech. O’Bryant, 637 F.3d at 1212. Bumpus also alleged temporal proximity given the short amount of time 7 between his appeal of the disciplinary decision and the alleged retaliatory actions. Id. Therefore, the district court erred by prematurely dismissing this portion of Bumpus’s First Amendment retaliation claim. Accordingly, we vacate and remand as to this issue. AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART. 8