Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 96-30285.
Thomas TIGHE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Richard A. WALL, Warden; John McGovern; Capt. Bordelon,
Defendants-Appellees.
Nov. 27, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana.
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the
district court erred in dismissing Thomas Tighe's § 1983 claim
alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for
exercising his First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to
his fellow inmates. Because we conclude that the district court
properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed Tighe's § 1983 claim, we affirm.
I.
In October 1992, Thomas Tighe, then a state prisoner at
Avoyelles Correctional Center in Cottonport, Louisiana, was
assigned to the position of "inmate counsel substitute." In
February 1993, he was removed from that position for what officials
called "unsatisfactory job performance"; the Avoyelles' warden
later filed an affidavit in connection with this case asserting
1

that he believed Tighe had improperly called the family of an
inmate about allegations of physical abuse within the prison.
Tighe denied making such a call and asserted that another inmate
counsel was responsible. In March 1993, Tighe was transferred to
Phelps Correctional Center in DeQuincy, Louisiana, to finish
serving his state sentence. He is currently serving his federal
prison sentence in Florence, Colorado.
II.
"To state a claim of retaliation an inmate must allege the
violation of a specific constitutional right and be prepared to
establish that but for the retaliatory motive the complained of
incident ... would not have occurred." Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d
1161, 1166 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct.
800, 133 L.Ed.2d 747 (1996). Such motivation may be established by
alleging " "a chronology of events from which retaliation may
plausibly be inferred.' " Id. (citation omitted). Thus, to
survive summary judgment, Tighe must allege a violation of a
constitutional right and demonstrate a retaliatory motive. He
argues that his First Amendment right of free speech includes the
right to give legal assistance to fellow inmates and that he was
removed from his job as inmate counsel and later transferred to
another prison in retaliation for exercising this right.
A prisoner has no constitutionally protected interest in a
particular facility or a specific work assignment. Olim v.
2

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1745, 75 L.Ed.2d
813 (1983); Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48,
49 (5th Cir.1995). The right to act as inmate counsel in a certain
facility is no exception to that general rule. As the Eighth
Circuit explained:
It is well established that inmates have a constitutional
right of access to the court. This right entitles inmates to
receive legal assistance from fellow inmates unless prison
officials provide reasonable alternative assistance. In the
absence of reasonable assistance, "[j]ailhouse lawyers have
standing to challenge official action that prevents them from
assisting other prisoners." There is, however, no right to be
or to receive legal assistance from a jailhouse lawyer
independent of the right of access to the court. Accordingly,
the transfer of a prisoner for "writ-writing" does not in and
of itself constitute the violation of a protected right.
Gassler v. Rayl, 862 F.2d 706, 707-08 (8th Cir.1988) (citations
omitted); see also Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 378 (6th
Cir.1993); Williams v. Nix, 1 F.3d 712, 716 (8th Cir.1993); Smith
v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 950 (10th Cir.1990).1 Tighe has not
argued that he or his fellow inmates have been denied access to the
courts; instead, he argues that inmates were deprived of his legal
assistance. Prisoners have no right to a particular prisoner's
help in legal matters as long as the putative recipient's
constitutional right of access to the courts is not infringed.
1A few courts have held that inmates have a First Amendment
right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates. Newsom v.
Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 375-77 (6th Cir.1989); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778
F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985); Baker v. Zlochowon, 741 F.Supp. 436
(S.D.N.Y.1990); Wiideman v. Angelone, 848 F.Supp. 136, 139
(D.Nev.1994). This Court does not find the reasoning of those
decisions persuasive.
3

Smith, 899 F.2d at 950, see also Lewis v. Casey, --- U.S. ----, 116
S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Because he has failed to
demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right, Tighe's
retaliation claim fails.
III.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of
Tighe's § 1983 claim.
AFFIRMED.

4