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

Case 1:09-cv-22905-JAL Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2011 Page 12 of 15
12
Stringer v. Jackson, et al.
Case No. 09-22905-Civ-Lenard/White
Moreover, even if the Court finds that Plaintiff was somehow subjected to an ―adverse
effect,‖ the grievance filed by the Plaintiff on October 6, 2009 illustrates that this effect was not
more than a ―de minimis inconvenience‖ and therefore insufficient to state a claim for retaliation.
Although Plaintiff‘s Complaint nebulously states that Jackson and Harris ―further caused the
plaintiff to be illegally transferred to much harsher and more dangerous jail conditions,‖
Plaintiff‘s grievance illuminates that these allegedly ―harsher and more dangerous‖ conditions
consisted of a denial of comfort, space, and privacy. See Exhibit ―C.‖ This is precisely the type
of ―de minimis inconvenience‖ found insufficient to support a retaliation claim, as actions far
more serious than simply being moved to a different prison have been held to be de minimis by
courts in this Circuit. See, e.g., Anderson v. McCalpin, No. 5:04cv44, 2007 WL 2900445, at *4
(N.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2007) (finding that inmate being held for twelve days in solitary confinement
in a cell for disruptive prisoners was no more than a ―de minimis inconvenience‖ and insufficient
to state a claim for retaliation); Thomas v. Latimer, No. 4:07-CV-74, 2009 WL 536507 (N.D.
Fla. Mar. 3, 2009) at *6 (holding a prisoner alleged only ―de minimis inconvenience‖ where he
complained of being held in solitary confinement for twenty days as a result of an inaccurate
disciplinary report).
Ultimately, although the Eleventh Circuit uses an objective test for determining whether a
defendant‘s alleged actions were sufficiently ―adverse‖ such that they would have deterred a
person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights, ―how plaintiff acted
might be evidence of what a reasonable person would have done.‖ Bennett, 423 F.3d at 1252
(citing Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2003)). Here, in response to
Defendants‘ alleged retaliation and coordinated attempt on his life, Plaintiff made prompt and
frequent use of the grievance process. Plaintiff was clearly not deterred in the slightest from
exercising his First Amendment rights, and this is how anyone of ordinary firmness would
respond. Accordingly, Plaintiff‘s retaliation claim against Jackson and Harris is subject to
dismissal with prejudice, and Jackson and Harris are entitled to qualified immunity.
C. Plaintiff’s Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Must be Stricken.
Finally, Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief in the form of ―[a]dmissions from the
defendant‘s, [sic] each of them, accounting for their illegal actions‖ as well as injunctive relief
requesting that the Court ―[o]rder the defendant‘s [sic], to maintain and provide all commissary