Garner v. Moore, 2:11-cv-00169

Garner, a Texas inmate, sues under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming retaliation for grievances and law-library access.
Defendants include Moore, Walden, Martinez, and Fernandez; others previously dismissed.
A Spears hearing occurred; some retaliation claims retained, other claims dismissed.
Defendants move for summary judgment; plaintiff opposes.
Court assesses exhaustion, standing, and qualified-immunity issues to resolve the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garner exhausted his retaliation claims	Garner exhausted all retaliation claims	Garner failed to exhaust August–November 2009 claims	Exhaustion failures; claims not exhausted
Whether Garner has standing to sue for retaliation and access to courts	Garner has standing to challenge retaliation	Standing lacking for access-to-courts claim	Garner has standing to pursue retaliation; access claim lacks injury-in-fact for prior action
Whether alleged threats to library access constitute a constitutional violation	Threats violated retaliation rules	Pure threats are de minimis and not actionable	Threats de minimis; no constitutional violation
Whether delays in delivering supplies were a retaliatory act supporting liability	Delays were retaliatory and prejudicial	Delays were de minimis and non-prejudicial	Delays de minimis; no liability under retaliation
Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Defendants violated clearly established rights	No constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies	No violation shown; qualified immunity applies

Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682 (5th Cir. 2006) (retaliation elements; de minimis acts not actionable)
Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2008) (causation and chronology in retaliation claims)
Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997) (requires plausibility of retaliation chronology)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion must be proper and complete)
Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (detail required in grievances for exhaustion)
McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 1998) (causation and retaliation framework)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis (now flexible))
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (abandoned mandatory sequencing for qualified immunity)
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995) (skepticism toward retaliation claims; require evidence)
Roseboro v. Gillespie, 791 F. Supp. 2d 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (illustrative de minimis delay in supplies)