John Coleman v. Alfreda Carrieon, et al, No. 15-10187 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-10187 Document: 00513477453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10187 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 22, 2016 JOHN ARICK COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LIEUTENANT ALFREDA D. CARRIEON; JULIE M. EVANS; SERGEANT BRYAN W. ADAMS; CAPTAIN DONALD DEAN, JR.; CAPTAIN NFN HUTTON; SERGEANT MARTHA E. MAES; SERGEANT MICHAEL W. VENABLE; OFFICER NFN GONZALES; JOE B. MILBERN; MARK ROTH; RICK THALER; GREGORY S. DAVID; Assistant Warden; NFN VOGELSANG, Warden; N. GARCIA, Correctional Officer II, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13-CV-116 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Arick Coleman, Texas prisoner # 1628667, filed a civil rights complaint in the district court against various personnel at the Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. His main Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-10187 Document: 00513477453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 No. 15-10187 complaint was one of retaliation related to his efforts to challenge his criminal conviction and to make use of the prison grievance procedures in connection with three prison disciplinary proceedings and an unfavorable job assignment. He complains also that his right to due process was violated during the disciplinary proceedings. He has appealed the district court’s order and judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice as frivolous and without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Our review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). A prison official may not retaliate against an inmate for accessing the courts or using a prison grievance procedure. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). “To state a valid claim for retaliation under section 1983, a prisoner must allege (1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation.” Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 764 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Coleman’s arguments are wholly conclusional and are based primarily on his personal belief that he is the victim of retaliation. See Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166; see also Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997). He has not shown that the district court erred in disposing of his retaliation and due process claims. The judgment is AFFIRMED. We WARN Coleman that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and as failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted counts as a strike under § 1915(g) and that, if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
