Opinion
2:07-CV-02002-PMP-GWF.
December 23, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court for consideration is Defendants R.L. Heise, Jr., and C. Campbell's fully briefed Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #61), filed on November 22, 2010. Having read and considered the briefs filed by the parties, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to the relief requested.
Specifically, Plaintiff Johnson's claims are unexhausted. Plaintiff Johnson was required to exhaust the prisons administrative grievance process before filing the instant lawsuit in a timely manner. Additionally, Plaintiff Johnson's claim of retaliation discipline fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff has not alleged or shown the nexus between protected speech and any adverse action taken. Plaintiff's retaliation claim fails because he does not allege that the disciplinary charges lodged against him fail to reasonably advance a legitimate penological goal.
Finally, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff Johnson has not shown that a reasonable official in Defendant's position would know submitting a disciplinary charge after an inmate throws a grievance at the officer is unlawful.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants R.L. Heise, Jr., and C. Campbell's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #61) is GRANTED and judgment is hereby entered in favor of said Defendants and against Plaintiff David Johnson.
DATED: December 22, 2010.