[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12071 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JAN 14, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-20281-MGC
PERMON THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES LAWRENCE,
ALBA DIAZ, et al.,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 14, 2011)
Before BLACK, PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Permon Thomas, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal
of his First Amendment retaliation complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thomas’s
complaint alleged that Chaplain Alba Diaz, Former Assistant Warden Charles
Lawrence, Warden Churchwell, and Assistant Warden Shoney, all employees of
the Dade Correctional Institution in Florida (“DCI”), as well as Walter McNeil,
Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and Adams, a grievance coordinator
in Tallahassee, retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.
Thomas alleged that, at some time prior to October 20, 2008, Diaz accused
Thomas of forging her name on a request to take a final examination for a
correspondence school course, and told him that he was not permitted to fill out
the form. At that meeting, Diaz told Thomas that she would issue him a verbal
reprimand for his violation. On October 20, 2008, Thomas submitted an informal
grievance against Diaz, alleging that she falsely accused him of forgery. Diaz
responded to Thomas’s grievance, denying his request for relief, recommending
that he be subject to administrative action for lying to staff on the course
examination form, and forwarding the response to Assistant Warden Charles
Lawrence for a determination of punishment. Lawrence directed Diaz to write
Thomas a disciplinary report. After he was found guilty of the infraction by the
disciplinary team, and after exhausting all of his administrative remedies, Thomas
2
filed his § 1983 complaint.
The district court dismissed Thomas’s complaint, concluding that Thomas’s
allegations were conclusory as to Lawrence, Churchwell, Shoney, McNeil, and
Adams. As to Diaz, the district court concluded that Thomas failed to establish a
causal connection between a protected activity and the alleged retaliatory act.
On appeal, Thomas argues that Florida law authorized only Diaz to make
the decision to issue a disciplinary report, and that it was error for the court to
conclude that Lawrence made the decision to discipline him. Thomas also argues
that Diaz’s disciplinary report was not made within the regular course of business
because Florida law did not provide that she could send her grievance response to
the next level of review. Thomas additionally argues that the district court abused
its discretion by dismissing the complaint on the basis that he failed to establish an
actionable causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged
retaliatory acts. He asserts that his complaint demonstrated that Diaz wrote the
disciplinary report as a reaction to his filing an informal grievance against her, and
that the chronology of the events described in his complaint supports an inference
of retaliation.
We review a district court’s decision to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint for
failure to state a claim de novo. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir.
3
2006)). A court must accept a plaintiff’s well-pled facts as true and make
reasonable inferences in his favor, but the court is not required to accept the
plaintiff’s legal conclusions or draw his inferences. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.,
578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). A complaint is subject to dismissal for
failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show that the plaintiff is not
entitled to relief. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 920, 166 L.Ed.2d
798 (2007).
In order to prevail on a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff
must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under
color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.
2001). For a prisoner to state a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983,
the prisoner must establish: (1) that his speech or act was constitutionally
protected; (2) that the defendant’s retaliatory conduct adversely affected the
protected speech; and (3) that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory
actions and the adverse effect on the speech. Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316,
1321 (11th Cir. 2008). A prisoner’s filing of a grievance concerning his
conditions of his imprisonment is protected speech under the First Amendment.
See id. (quoting Boxer X, 437 F.3d at 1112). To prevail, the adverse action that
the inmate suffers as a result of the prison official’s alleged retaliation must be
4
such that it “would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in
such speech.” Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008). The second
element of the cause of action thus requires “an objective standard and a factual
inquiry.” Id. at 1277. The third element, whether there was a causal connection
between the retaliatory acts and the adverse effect on the speech, “asks whether
the defendants were subjectively motivated to discipline because [the prisoner]
complained of the conditions of his confinement.” Id. at 1278.
The Florida Administrative Code contains procedures relating to the filing
and review of inmate grievances. Fla. Admin. Code 33-103 et seq. Inmates are
entitled to utilize the grievances procedures to complain about a number of
matters, including incidents that occur within the institution that affect them
personally. Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.001(2), (3)(d). “It is the policy of the
[Florida Department of Corrections] that all inmate request forms be answered.”
Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.005(5). Prior to initiating a formal grievance with the
institution’s wardens, an inmate must file an informal grievance “with the staff
member who is responsible in the particular area of the problem.” Fla. Admin.
Code 33-103.002(5), (12), 33-103.005(1). When an inmate files an informal
grievance, the reviewing authority is the staff member who is responsible for the
issue grieved. Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.002(15)(a). The reviewing authority
5
must respond to the inmate, in writing, with a decision to approve, deny or return
the grievance and the reasons for the decision, and must sign and date the form
and return the informal grievance to the inmate. Fla. Admin. Code
33-103.002(16), 33-103.005(4)(a)-(c). If the grievance is denied, the response
must include a statement informing the inmate that he may obtain further
administrative review of his complaint. Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.005(4)(d), 33-
103.15(5).
An inmate’s good faith use of the grievance process should not result in
reprisal against him, and thus staff should not obstruct an inmate’s access to the
grievance process by retaliating or threatening to retaliate against the inmate for
his participation in the grievance process. Fla. Admin. Code 33-103.002(10), 33-
103.017(1). However, an inmate is subject to administrative and disciplinary
action if the inmate knowingly includes false statements in the grievance or any of
its attachments, regardless of any reprisal by staff. Fla. Admin. Code 33-
103.017(2); see also Fla. Admin Code 33-601.314(9)-(10) (providing that an
inmate may be subject to a maximum of 60 days of disciplinary confinement and
may forfeit all of his gain time for “lying to a staff member or others in official
capacity, or falsifying records.”).
The Florida Administrative Code also contains procedures relating to
6
inmate discipline. Fla. Admin. Code 33-601 et seq. If any employee witnesses or
has reason to believe that an inmate has violated DOC rules or procedures, and the
employee determines that the infraction can be disposed of without a formal
disciplinary report, the employee may reprimand the inmate verbally or in writing.
Fla. Admin. Code 33-601.303(1). A verbal reprimand should be documented on
the inmate’s contact card, which is a written log, kept in the inmate’s housing unit,
to document the inmate’s behavior. Fla. Admin. Code 33-601.302(2), 33-
601.303(1)(a). A written reprimand is kept in the inmate’s institutional file, and a
copy must be provided to the inmate within 24 hours of the corrective consultation
with the inmate. Fla. Admin. Code. 33-601.303(1)(b). If, however, the employee
determines that the matter cannot be resolved with a verbal or written reprimand,
“the employee shall consult with and obtain approval from his or her supervisor
regarding preparation of a formal disciplinary report[.]” Fla. Admin. Code. 33-
601.303(2).
A. Thomas’s claim against Diaz
Here, Thomas has failed to state a First Amendment retaliation claim against
Diaz. The facts and chronology of events presented in Thomas’s complaint could
satisfy the causal connection requirement. However, any inference of a causal
connection between Thomas’s grievance and the alleged retaliation by Diaz is
7
broken because Diaz was required to respond to Thomas’s grievance, because
Diaz complied with Florida law, and because a party other than Diaz determined
or confirmed that Thomas should receive a disciplinary report. Accordingly, the
district court did not err in dismissing Thomas’s complaint for failure to state a
claim based on a lack of a causal connection between the grievance and the
alleged retaliation.
B. Thomas’s claims against all other defendants
Thomas also argues on appeal that he set forth sufficient facts to state a
claim of retaliation against each of the defendants because Diaz’s disciplinary
report was a retaliatory act which was approved by each of the other defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,” and Rule 8(d)(1) requires that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise
and direct.” Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to provide detailed factual
allegations, but a complaint will not suffice if it offers no more than “labels and
conclusions,” or “an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 883-84 (2009).
Even construing the allegations and facts in the complaint in the light most
favorable to Thomas, he has failed to state a claim against any other defendant.
8
Thomas’s grievance did not complain about any staff member except for Diaz, and
his complaint failed to allege any facts that would suggest that any of the other
named defendants had a reason to retaliate against him for filing the grievance
against Diaz. Because Thomas merely concludes that each of the defendants
retaliated against him for filing the grievance by approving of Diaz’s disciplinary
report, his claims against the remaining defendants do not comply with the
requirements of Rule 8. See Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Accordingly, the district
court did not err in dismissing Thomas’s complaint in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.
9