IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40975
(Summary Calendar)
SONNY WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JENNIFER REEVES, Correctional
Officer, Coffield Unit,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(96-CV-1100)
--------------------
April 14, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Sonny Wilson, Texas prisoner # 684871,
argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim. Wilson alleged that he was subjected
to the excessive use of force by a prison guard and that the guard
was acting in retaliation for Wilson’s filing complaints against
her with her supervisors.
An IFP complaint may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
§ 1915A(b) if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Ruiz v.
United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998). “A complaint
lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges the
violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist.”
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). We review
a dismissal as frivolous under § 1915A(b) for abuse of discretion.
Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 255.
In contrast, we review de novo the § 1915A(b) dismissal of a
civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. Id.; see
Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733 (5th Cir. 1998). A district
court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim will
be upheld only if, taking the plaintiff’s allegations as true, it
appears that no relief could be granted on the plaintiff’s alleged
facts. See Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 240 (5th Cir.
1999).
In reviewing Wilson’s allegations the district court failed to
treat his allegations as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the him. If Wilson’s allegations are accepted as
true, they support a claim that Officer Reeves maliciously pulled
the free handcuff in order to injure Wilson’s handcuffed hand.
Wilson’s allegations are also inconsistent with the district
court’s determination that Reeves was attempting to obtain the
handcuffs to restore discipline and security. Wilson alleged that
Reeves did not attempt to unlock the remaining handcuff cuff
although the key was in the cuff’s lock prior to her use of force.
2
Also contrary to the district court’s determination, Wilson alleged
that he did not pull back on the cuffs until Reeves refused his
request to stop pulling the cuff because it was hurting his hand.
Wilson’s allegations, if true, reflect that Reeves acted
maliciously with intent to injure Wilson and not to restore
discipline or security in the prison. Wilson’s allegations thus
are not indisputably meritless. The district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the excessive-force claim as frivolous and
erred in granting the motion to dismiss based on failure to state
a claim. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992).
The district court also erred in dismissing Wilson’s claim of
retaliation. In addressing Wilson’s first appeal, we determined
that he had stated an arguable retaliation claim. See Wilson v.
Reeves, No. 97-40836 (5th Cir. Apr. 30, 1999). Further, Wilson’s
allegations reflect that Reeves was aware that Wilson intended to
report her misconduct to her superior. The allegations further
reflect that in response to Wilson’s request to see a supervisor,
Reeves responded with the immediate use of force and expressions of
outrage about the lies Wilson had allegedly told about her. Wilson
also alleged that he had reported Reeves’s misconduct to her
supervisors in the past.
Accepting this chronology of events as true, such facts could
support a finding that Reeves maliciously injured Wilson because of
his prior complaints about her and because of his intent to report
her misconduct in the shower area to her supervisor. Wilson’s
3
allegations are sufficient to state an arguable retaliation claim.
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint is
vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
4