Court Opinion

ID: 9488637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:51:04.533804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:00.244179
License: Public Domain

MeMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur with the holding in favor of defendant Wood on the claim that the transfer agreement violated Sterling’s right of meaningful access to the courts. However, I dissent from the holding in favor of Wood on Sterling’s retaliatory transfer claim.
This is the first time that this court has been called upon to interpret language in a transfer agreement, imposed by prison officials, which requires that a prisoner “must not become litigious.” I agree with the majority’s interpretation of this language as essentially “a condition that the prisoner cannot harass prison officials or the courts "with frivolous litigation, rather than a prohibition against even a single meritorious lawsuit.” Op. at 1126. In light of this interpretation, I further agree with the majority’s conclusion that there are no genuine issues of material fact and Wood is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Sterling’s claim that the transfer agreement violated his right of meaningful access to the courts.
However, I disagree with the majority’s holding that Wood is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Sterling’s retaliation claim. The majority’s decision on this issue rests entirely on the conclusion that “Sterling’s claim in his amendment to his complaint in the North Dakota litigation was frivolous.” Id. at 1127 (emphasis added). The majority assumes, as they must, that Sterling was transferred in response to the fact that he amended his complaint in the North Dakota litigation. Id. at 1127 & n. 1. Sterling’s claim in his amendment to his complaint in the North Dakota litigation was that North Dakota officials had violated his constitutional rights by making a misrepresentation that caused officials at Oak Park Heights to impose what Sterling believed at that time to be an unconstitutional restriction on his right of access to the courts, namely, the “must not become litigious” clause in his transfer agreement. In determining that the claim in the amended'complaint was frivolous, the majority states, without explanation, “[ojbviously the claim was spurious at the time it was made.” Id. at 1126-1127. The majority further reasons — in circular fashion — that the claim asserted in the amended complaint was “certainly frivolous in light of our decision upholding the constitutionality of the ‘must not become litigious’ clause.” Id. at 1127.
As I have noted, we are only now deciding for the first time that the imposition of the *1128condition “must not become litigious” as part of a transfer agreement does not per se violate the right of meaningful access to the courts. Thus, it would have been impossible for Sterling to know, without a crystal ball, that the condition in the transfer agreement was not unconstitutional at the time he amended his complaint in the North Dakota litigation. At that time, he reasonably may have believed that the “must not become litigious” condition meant that any use of the courts would result in his transfer back to federal custody.1 Even the dictionary definition of the term “litigious,” upon which the majority relies, says nothing about frivolous, malicious, or harassing lawsuits. Therefore, Sterling’s claim alleging that North Dakota prison officials violated his constitutional rights by taking actions that caused the condition to be imposed on him was not frivolous. Cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1832-33, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (the term “frivolous,” as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), refers to claims that are based on “indisputably meritless legal theory” or “clearly baseless” factual contentions).
In order to prove a retaliatory transfer, a prisoner must show that, but for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, the transfer would not have taken place. Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d at 737. I believe that Sterling has come forward with sufficient facts to survive a summary judgment motion on the question of whether the transfer was retaliatory. To begin, the transfer agreement itself indicated that any action deemed “litigious” would result in his transfer back to federal custody. Furthermore, Sterling alleged that both Wood and one of the correctional officers at Oak Park Heights, Lieutenant Hell, told him that if he filed anything in court, he would be returned immediately to the federal system. Additionally, there is no dispute that Sterling’s mailing of the amended complaint occurred on September 10, 1991, and the meeting of prison officials, in which it was determined that Sterling would be transferred back to federal custody, occurred the very next day, September 11, 1991. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 948-49 (10th Cir.1990) (“close temporal proximity” between exercise of protected activity and alleged retaliation was circumstantial evidence supporting finding of genuine issue of material fact). Finally, Wood himself admitted that associate warden Crist told Sterling that Wood considered Sterling’s reference to Wood in the North Dakota litigation to be in violation of the transfer agreement. Therefore, on the record before us, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Wood’s decision to transfer Sterling was motivated by a desire to retaliate against him for exercising his constitutional rights.
Finally, I underscore the majority’s comment that state prison officials cannot be the final arbiter of what legally constitutes a “frivolous” claim. Op. at 1126. In the present case, Wood was not the final arbiter of whether Sterling’s claim was frivolous; the courts have performed that role. Fortunately for Wood, the majority’s conclusion that Sterling’s claim in his amended complaint was frivolous (a conclusion with which I disagree) has rendered Wood’s decision to transfer Sterling nonactionable. However, when prison officials take it upon themselves to make such legal evaluations as a basis for deciding whether or not to exercise their authority to transfer prisoners, they assume some risk. While it is true that there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious, it is equally well-established that retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right states a claim under § 1983. Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir.1990). Such retaliatory conduct is actionable, even if the challenged conduct, absent retaliatory motive, would have been proper. Id. The law remains clearly established that prison officials may not transfer an inmate because he or she chooses to exercise the constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts. Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d at 736.

. Because of Sterling's past cooperation with authorities during an internal prison criminal investigation in Oregon, the Federal Bureau of Prisons determined that he is unsafe in the general population of its prisons.