O'BRYANT v. Finch

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “if the [prison] official can show that he would have taken the disciplinary action in the absence of the prisoner’s protected conduct, he cannot be held liable.”
• noting that “if the [prison] official can show that he would have taken the disciplinary action in the absence of the prisoner's protected conduct, he cannot be held liable.”
• recognizing that “[a]ny possible causal connection between the protected activity (the grievances) and the harm . . . is severed since the harm is not in reaction to any protected activity, but directly due to an improper activity”
• holding that “an inmate cannot state a claim of retaliation for a disciplinary charge involving a prison rule infraction when the inmate was found guilty of the actual behavior underlying that charge after being afforded adequate due process”
• noting that due process merely requires there be some evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary official
• finding that the causal connection element of a retaliation claim cannot be established “if the official can show that he would have taken the disciplinary action in the absence of the prisoner’s protected conduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).