Robert D. Sprouse v. David Babcock, Charles Harper and Ronald G. Welder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the filing of a disciplinary charge against an inmate is actionable if done in retaliation for filing a grievance
• holding that filing of a false 4 disciplinary charge in retaliation for a grievance filed by an inmate is actionable under section 5 1983
• holding that claims based on falsity of disciplinary charges, standing alone, do not state constitutional claims
• concluding that claims based on the falsity of charges and impropriety of the defendant’s involvement in the grievance procedure, “standing alone, do not state constitutional claims”
• holding that filing of a disciplinary charge, although otherwise not actionable under § 1983, is actionable under § 1983 if done in retaliation for the filing of a grievance pursuant to established procedures
• concluding that a disciplinary charge may be actionable under § 1983 if retaliatory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).