US District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) - United States ...

Case 1:09-cv-22905-JAL Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 3 of 6
3
Stringer v. Jackson, et al.
Case No. 09-22905-Civ-Lenard/White
from the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Id. Moreover, in determining whether a
defendant‟s alleged actions were sufficiently adverse, “how plaintiff acted might be evidence of
what a reasonable person would have done.” Id. at 1252 (citing Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348
F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2003)). In this case, the many Inmate Grievances submitted by the
Plaintiff after Jackson and Harris allegedly retaliated against him clearly indicate the absence of
any “adverse effect” on Plaintiff‟s ability to exercise his First Amendment rights. See Plaintiff‟s
Inmate Grievance Forms filed after July 2, 2009 [D.E. #56 at Exhibit “A”]. Here, Plaintiff was
completely undeterred from exercising his First Amendment rights in response to Defendants‟
alleged retaliation, and this is how anyone of ordinary firmness would respond. Given that
Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss has established Plaintiff‟s prompt and frequent use of the
grievance process, Plaintiff‟s section 1983 claim for retaliation against Jackson and Harris lacks
any merit whatsoever and warrants dismissal.
In addition, a valid claim for retaliation under section 1983 requires that the “adverse
effect” caused by defendant‟s retaliatory conduct must be more than a “de minimis
inconvenience” to the exercise of plaintiff‟s First Amendment rights. Bennett, 423 F.3d at 1252.
In his own Inmate Grievance Form dated October 6, 2009, which references the retaliatory
transfer alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states that he went from a “single
room with desk, toilet, sink, adequate space, privacy, storage for legal materials—to a top bunk
in a severely overcrowded, more dangerous cell.” See Plaintiff‟s Inmate Grievance Form dated
October 6, 2009 [D.E. #56 at Exhibit “C”]. Therefore the “harsher and more dangerous”
conditions alleged in Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint simply consist of a denial of
comfort, space, and privacy—precisely the type of “de minimis inconvenience” found
insufficient to support a claim for retaliation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Latimer, No. 4:07-CV-74,