Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DEANO D. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RANDALL P. OLLIS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
42 Fed. Appx. 694
July 26, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT
PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS
NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
ORDER
Before: SILER, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
Deano D. Williams, a.k.a. Hassan Muhammad, appeals a district court
order dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case
has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(1), Rules of
the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral
argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary, declaratory,
and injunctive relief, Williams sued
numerous [*695] prison officials and employees in their individual and official
capacities, alleging that the defendants retaliated against him and mistreated
him after his transfer to the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility. The district
court dismissed Williams's claims as meritless. On appeal, this court affirmed
the district court's dismissal of Williams's claims, except for his First
Amendment retaliation claim. This court remanded the case for consideration of
that claim in light of this court's decision in Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d
378, 387-88 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
Williams v. Ollis, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 23671, Nos. 99-2168, et al.,
2000 WL 1434459 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2000) (unpublished order).
On remand, the magistrate judge
recommended that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on
Williams's First Amendment retaliation claim. Over Williams's objections, the
district court adopted the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation, granted summary judgment for the defendants
on Williams's remaining claim, and dismissed the case. In this timely appeal,
Williams requests the appointment of counsel.
Upon review, we conclude that
the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants.
This court reviews de novo a district court order granting summary
judgment. Lucas v. Monroe County, 203
F.3d 964, 971 (6th Cir. 2000).
Although Williams raises
numerous claims in his brief on appeal, all of his claims in essence argue that
the district court improperly concluded that the defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity on Williams's First Amendment retaliation claim. The
affirmative defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability
for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73
L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982); Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303,
310-11 (6th Cir. 2000). When determining whether a right is "clearly
established," the court must look to decisions of the Supreme Court, then
to decisions of this court and other courts within our circuit, and finally to decisions
of other circuits. Gardenhire, 205 F.3d at 311. The contours of the right must
be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he
is doing violates that right. Anderson
v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523, 107 S. Ct. 3034 (1987);
Gardenhire, 205 F.3d at 311.
The law concerning a prisoner's
retaliation claim was not "clearly established" prior to the
Thaddeus-X en banc decision. In that decision, the court noted that this
circuit previously had applied inconsistent analyses for these retaliation
claims, often requiring a prisoner to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct
"shocks the conscience." Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 387-88. The court
concluded that this analysis was in conflict with Supreme Court precedent and
no longer the law of this circuit." Id. at 388. The court also noted that
this conflicting case law was not unique to this circuit. Id. at 388 n.4. This court has repeatedly
referred to the Thaddeus-X decision as clarifying the law concerning
retaliation claims. Herron v. Harrison,
203 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2000); Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 301 n.5
(6th Cir. 1999); Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 521 (6th Cir.
1999). Consequently, the analysis for retaliation claims, as set forth in
Thaddeus-X, was not "clearly established" at the time of the
defendants' alleged improper conduct in 1995 and 1996, and the district court
properly concluded that
they are entitled to qualified immunity for claims based on that decision.
[*696] Lastly, Williams argues in his reply brief that the defendants'
conduct violated Michigan prison regulations. However, this court will not
consider an argument raised for the first time in the appellant's reply brief.
United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392, 401 (6th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the
defendants' failure to comply with state prison administrative regulations does
not defeat their entitlement to qualified immunity. Gravely v. Madden, 142 F.3d
345, 349 (6th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly,
this court denies Williams's request for counsel and affirms the district
court's judgment. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.