IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10022
Conference Calendar
ALVIN COLEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRUCE WAYNE WORTHAM, # 584610 Price
Daniel Unit; T.J. MEDART, Warden, Price Daniel
Unit; NO FIRST NAME SWEETIN, Assistant
Warden, Price Daniel Unit; MAJOR SMITH,
Price Daniel Unit; CAPTAIN RANSBURGER,
Price Daniel Unit; NO FIRST NAME ROTH,
State Unit Classification, Price Daniel Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:00-CV-181
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alvin Coleman, Texas prisoner # 665951, appeals the district
court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal as frivolous of his
pro se, in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint, alleging that he received a false disciplinary case in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-10022
-2-
retaliation for his having complained to Texas Department of
Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) officials about verbal threats he
received from a fellow inmate, Bruce Wayne Wortham. The district
court’s dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Norton
v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997).
An essential element of a retaliation claim is the ability
to show causation, i.e., that the complained-of disciplinary
cases would not have occurred absent the retaliatory motive. See
Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997); Woods v.
Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). As the district court
determined, Coleman’s allegations are insufficient to show
retaliatory motive. Although Coleman argues that he alleged a
chronology of events from which retaliation can reasonably be
inferred, he is incorrect. Coleman alleged that he complained
about Wortham to Assistant Warden Sweeten, Major Smith, Captain
Ransburger, and Unit Classification Director Roth in January 1998
and that he received a disciplinary case six months later from
Warden Medart and Lieutenant Simpson for participating in a riot.
No causal connection can be inferred between these facially
unrelated events, occurring six months apart and not involving
the same TDCJ officials. Coleman’s allegations of retaliatory
animus are wholly conclusional, amounting to no more than his
personal belief that he was retaliated against, and they are
thus insufficient. See Johnson, 110 F.3d at 310; Woods, 60 F.3d
at 1166.
No. 02-10022
-3-
Coleman has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion on the
district court’s part. His argument that he should have been
permitted to amend his complaint rather than face dismissal is
patently frivolous because he was in fact given several chances
to elaborate upon his claim. The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.