Opinion ID: 70656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Incident Retaliation

Text: Jackson claims that the prison guards have retaliated against him since he filed a complaint about their handling of the fight. He says they search his cell, steal from him, and verbally threaten him. Of course, prison officials “may not retaliate against or harass an inmate for . . . complaining to a supervisor about a guard’s misconduct.” 20 Jackson, though, “alleges no factual basis for that mere conclusionary allegation. Standing alone, the contention is frivolous.”21 Nor does Jackson have a valid constitutional claim for underlying searches, thefts, or threats. First, “prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy,” so – absent cruel or unusual circumstances – the Constitution does not prohibit even unreasonable cell searches.22 Second, as long as the state provides for a meaningful post-deprivation remedy (which Louisiana does 23 ), then no constitutional violation occurs when a state employee negligently or intentionally deprives a prisoner of property.24 And third, freestanding “claims 20 Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). 21 Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1988). 22 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). 23 Hodge v. B.B. “Sixty” Rayburn Corr. Ctr., 2008 WL 4628586, ; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88139,  (E.D. La. 2008) (citing Marshall v. Norwood, 741