Plaintiff cannot show that his transfer from one administrative segregation unit to another was an adverse action taken against him for filing grievances. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.

In any event, a prison may transfer an inmate simply to give the prison staff a respite from the prisoner's grievance filings. Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995). Such an inmate's subsequent allegation of retaliation fails to state a claim for relief, because a transfer from the general population of one prison to another does not constitute a retaliatory "adverse action," as it would not deter a person o[f] ordinary firmness from the exercise of his First Amendment rights.

But when that happens, the prison is not restricted from taking any action against the prisoner to minimize the disruption, it just must not take an adverse action against the prisoner. Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271, 274 (6th Cir.) (holding no constitutional violation for taking action against prisoner whose numerous grievances were disruptive because chosen action did not deter him from exercising his rights), cert. denied,516 U.S. 991, 116 S.Ct. 524, 133 L.Ed.2d 431 (1995). “Prison officials are clearly free to punish inmate conduct that threatens the orderly administration of the prison.

Doc. Ent. 49-3 ¶ 6. Then, citing Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995), defendant points to Nobles's affidavit, wherein he refers to the September 22, 2008 electronic mail (Doc. Ent. 35-2 at 4) and attests that he "authorized the plaintiff's transfer to ARF on October 3, 2008 due to security concerns after receiving information that indicated that the plaintiff was one of the organizers of a possible planned passive protest."

To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Mackie and Cushman retaliated against him by transferring him to another prison, he fails to demonstrate that the conduct was sufficiently adverse to state a claim. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.

Plaintiff, however, cannot show that his transfer to the Upper Peninsula was an adverse action taken against him for filing grievances. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.

See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001); Noble v. Schmitt, 87 F.3d 157, 162 (6th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff, however, cannot show that his transfers from LCF to RMI and from RMI to LRF were adverse actions taken against him because he filed a grievance or grievances. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.

Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 607 (6th Cir. 2002). Although Plaintiff has alleged that he engaged in protected conduct, he cannot show that his transfer to OTF was an adverse action taken against him for filing grievances and lawsuits against some Defendants. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.

Plaintiff, however, cannot satisfy the second requirement because his transfer to KTF did not constitute adverse action. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.

Plaintiff, however, cannot meet the second prong of the Thaddeus-X test. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995): Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular institution.