IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40751
Summary Calendar
RODNEY WAYNE SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FRED BECKER, NORMAN E. MCCLURE, CURTIS B. MCKNIGHT, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-92-CV-515
- - - - - - - - - -
June 29, 1998
Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Wayne Smith (#330699), a state prisoner, appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights complaint. The complaint was
dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). Smith
argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims of
retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, denial of
equal protection, and invasion of privacy for an allegedly
unreasonable strip and body-cavity search. For reasons discussed
below, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND the
*
Under 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except in
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-40751
-2-
case for further proceedings on the retaliation and strip-and-
body-cavity-search claims. In all other respects, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
A state official may not retaliate against a prisoner for
exercising his federally protected rights. Williams v. Rhoden,
629 F.2d 1099, 1103 (5th Cir. 1980). Smith alleged that
defendant Curtis McKnight stated that he would “come down hard”
on Smith for filing a grievance; that three disciplinary
proceedings which postdated McKnight’s threat were motivated by
retaliatory animus; that defendants Norman McClure, McKnight, and
C. Godine had conspired to cause Godine to lie in connection with
a July 1992 disciplinary charge; that defendant N. Sylvester
brought false disciplinary charges against him and restricted his
use of the prison law library because Smith had filed a grievance
regarding restrictions in his use of the library; that a public
strip and body-cavity search by defendants W. VanHook and J. Mayo
had occurred after he had filed this lawsuit and several other
grievances; and that Smith had been charged with a disciplinary
violation related to that incident.** These allegations are
sufficient to state nonfrivolous retaliation claims against the
defendants named in the preceding sentence. See Woods v. Smith,
60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). See also Gibbs v. King, 779
F.2d 1040, 1046 (5th Cir. 1986) involving right of access to
**
Smith does not suggest that defendants Becker, Scott,
Kufeji, Herklotz, Adams, Velasquez, Collins, Barerra, Lapointe,
Mader, Lucky, Germany, and Jenkins were motivated by retaliatory
animus. To the extent that Smith intends to assert retaliation
claims against these defendants, those claims were properly
dismissed.
No. 97-40751
-3-
courts; Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115, 1153 (5th Cir.) involving
the right to complain of prison conditions and treatment, opinion
amended in part and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (1982);
Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 259 (5th Cir. 1993) recognizing
that a prisoner may have a protected liberty interest in the
prison grievance procedures. The district court’s judgment
dismissing the retaliation claims against defendants McKnight,
McClure, Godine, Sylvester, VanHook, and Mayo as frivolous, is
VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
Smith also contends that the district court erred in
dismissing, as frivolous, his Fourth Amendment claim against
defendants VanHook and Mayo for the strip and body-cavity search.
“The Fourth Amendment . . . requires that searches or seizures
conducted on prisoners must be reasonable under all the facts and
circumstances in which they are performed.” Elliott v. Lynn, 38
F.3d 188, 190-91 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Under appropriate circumstances, visual body cavity
searches of prisoners can be constitutionally reasonable.” Id.
at 191. The question of reasonableness, however, involves issues
of fact which were not resolved at this stage of the litigation.
See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The district
court’s judgment dismissing the claim against VanHook and Mayo,
related to the strip and body-cavity search, is VACATED, and the
case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
Smith also contends that various defendants violated his
rights to equal protection. Smith failed to allege that the
defendants were motivated by a discriminatory purpose. For that
No. 97-40751
-4-
reason, the district court properly dismissed Smith’s equal-
protection claims as legally frivolous. See Woods v. Edwards, 51
F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995). The dismissal of this claim as
frivolous is AFFIRMED.
Smith contends that the district court erred in refusing to
permit him to file documents and tape recordings related to his
prison disciplinary proceedings into the record. The district
court did not rule that the recordings and documents could never
be introduced, only that they were not appropriately presented at
that time. No abuse of discretion has been shown. The district
court’s order is AFFIRMED.
Smith contends that the district court erred in refusing to
grant that motion for injunctive relief related to conditions at
a prison law library. Smith’s request for a preliminary
injunction implicated his right of access to the courts. Because
Smith has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on his
denial of access to the court’s claim, see Henthorn v. Swinson,
955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1992), and because the facts
underlying the motion for injunctive relief were not pertinent to
a claim at issue in this lawsuit, he cannot show that the
district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See
Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). The
district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.