Court Opinion

ID: 2963855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:17.61943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:47.256006
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 9, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2194

                                  RONALD L'HEUREUX,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                 LEO ASHTON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ronald L'Heureux on brief pro se.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Appellant Ronald  L'Heureux, an inmate
                      __________

            at the Adult Correctional  Institution in Rhode Island, filed

            a  42 U.S.C.   1983 action in Rhode Island's federal district

            court, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  The
                                                  _________________

            complaint,  besides  naming  the   parties  and  citing   the

            jurisdictional bases of the  action, contains only conclusory

            references  to   the  nature  of  appellant's   claims.    It

            essentially alleges that (1) defendants (various correctional

            officials)  manufactured   disciplinary  proceedings  against

            appellant,  (2)  appellant spent  120  days  in lock-up,  (3)

            appellant was denied reclassification,  and (4) at least some

            of these actions were taken for the purpose of discrimination

            and  retaliation.

                      The district court denied the request to proceed in
                                                                       __

            forma  pauperis, stating on the back  of the application that
            _______________

            "the  allegations are  insufficient  to set  forth a  federal

            cause of action."  The next day, judgment was entered for the

            defendants.  Thus, the  only reason given for dismissing  the

            complaint is the above-quoted language.   We construe this as

            a  dismissal under 28 U.S.C.   1915(d).  Appellant then filed

            a motion for relief from judgment and to amend the complaint,

            and  a motion to reconsider  the denial of  in forma pauperis
                                                        _________________

            status.   The amended  complaint added allegations concerning

            the events  upon  which  appellant  based the  action.    The

            district court denied  these motions.  This appeal ensued and

                                         -2-

            appellant  now  requests  permission  to   proceed  in  forma
                                                                _________

            pauperis on appeal.
            ________

                      Despite its brevity, the complaint should not  have

            been dismissed under   1915(d) without first giving appellant

            notice  of the deficiency and  an opportunity to  amend.  See
                                                                      ___

            Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329-30 (1989) (emphasizing
            _______    ________

            the  importance of  providing  opportunities  for  responsive

            pleadings  to   indigent   litigants  commensurate   to   the

            opportunities accorded similarly situated  paying litigants);

            Street  v. Fair,  918  F.2d 269,  273  (1st Cir.  1990)  (per
            ______     ____

            curiam)  (where the complaint's  deficiency conceivably could

            be  cured by amendment, an indigent plaintiff must be given a

            chance  to  supplement  his  or her  allegations  before  any

            dismissal  on  the merits).    Particularly  in view  of  the

            allegations  in the  amended  complaint, we  cannot say  that

            appellant will be unable to state a cognizable claim.

                      In  the  amended complaint,  appellant specifically

            alleges  that  prison officials  retaliated  against him  for

            acting  as a jail-house lawyer.   This court  and others have

            recognized such  claims.   See, e.g., McDonald  v. Hall,  610
                                       ___  ____  ________     ____

            F.2d  16, 18 (1st Cir.  1979) (inmate who  asserted that as a

            result  of his activities as a jail-house lawyer on behalf of

            himself  and others,  he  was transferred  to another  prison

            stated a claim even  though the allegations were conclusory);

            Gibbs   v.  Hopkins,  10  F.3d   373,  378  (6th  Cir.  1993)
            _____       _______

                                         -3-

            (government  official  may  not   retaliate  by  the  use  of

            segregation   against   an   inmate   who   engages  in   the

            constitutionally protected  conduct of assisting  others as a

            jail-house  lawyer); Rizzo  v. Dawson,  778 F.2d  527, 531-32
                                 _____     ______

            (9th Cir. 1985) (the assertion  that an inmate's transfer was

            in retaliation for his  work as a jail-house lawyer  stated a

            claim  for  violation  of   the  First  Amendment  where  the

            retaliatory  act  did  not  advance  legitimate institutional

            goals).  Although the chronology still is vague so that it is

            not   clear  whether  appellant's  activities  triggered  the

            disciplinary  proceedings,  such  an  omission  goes  to  the

            failure to state a claim, not frivolousness.  See Leonardo v.
                                                          ___ ________

            Moran, 611 F.2d 397, 398 (1st Cir. 1979) (plaintiff failed to
            _____

            state  a   1983 claim for retaliation based on the conclusory

            allegation that due to earlier filed grievances in the United

            States district court, he was transferred to maximum security

            and  denied access to  the courts;  plaintiff failed  to show

            that  "but for"  the  grievances,  he  would  not  have  been

            transferred).     Appellant's   allegations   that   he   was

            transferred to  segregation for the possession  of legal mail

            and for  his activities  as a jail-house  lawyer sufficiently

            implicate    the   First    Amendment   and    overcome   the

            characterization of the complaint as frivolous.

                      We therefore grant appellant's motion to proceed in
                                                                       __

            forma pauperis  on appeal,  summarily vacate the  judgment of
            ______________

                                         -4-

            the district court, and remand for  further proceedings.  See
                                                                      ___

            Local Rule 27.1.   The discussion herein alerts  appellant to

            the elements  of a viable  retaliation claim.   Appellant may

            not depend  merely on  vague  and general  allegations.   See
                                                                      ___

            Gooley v. Mobil  Oil Corp.,  851 F.2d 513,  514-15 (1st  Cir.
            ______    ________________

            1988).

                      Vacated and remanded.
                      ____________________

                                         -5-