Petrie Robinson v. Ricky Allen, 673 F. App'x 434

Robinson, a Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging defendants conspired to retaliate against him and violated prison rules following disciplinary proceedings.
The district court dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and dismissed official-capacity claims under Rule 12(b)(1) (Robinson did not contest jurisdictional dismissal).
The district court concluded Robinson had alleged his best case and denied leave to amend; the dismissal was with prejudice.
Robinson raised additional claims on appeal (including an Eighth Amendment challenge to punitive confinement), which the court held were not raised below and therefore could not be considered for the first time on appeal.
The court held Robinson’s asserted facts did not establish retaliation, did not create a protected liberty interest for due process purposes, and that alleged policy violations alone do not establish due process violations.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, treated the dismissal as a judgment on the merits, and warned Robinson that the dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Robinson stated a retaliation claim	Defendants conspired to retaliate against him	Allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show retaliation	Dismissal for failure to state a retaliation claim affirmed
Whether punitive conditions amounted to Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment	Post-conviction confinement conditions were cruel and unusual (raised on appeal)	No Eighth Amendment violation shown; claim not raised below	Court declined to consider new Eighth Amendment theory on appeal; not permitted first raised on appeal
Whether due process claim regarding disciplinary proceeding is cognizable	Challenged the second disciplinary proceeding and punishment	Due process claim barred until conviction is overturned; no protected liberty interest in reduced status/90-day cell change	Due process claim dismissed; barred by Heck/Edwards and Sandin (no liberty interest)
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice and count as a § 1915(g) strike	Dismissal was erroneous and should not be with prejudice	Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is judgment on the merits and may be with prejudice; counts as a strike	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; counts as a strike under § 1915(g)

Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff may be denied leave to amend if he has alleged his best case)
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995) (conclusory beliefs of conspiracy/retaliation insufficient)
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 1999) (new theories cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (post-conviction relief required for claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (disciplinary changes that do not impose atypical, significant hardship do not create protected liberty interests)
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (prisoner has no liberty interest in classification/transfer absent state-created right)
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1989) (violation of prison policy alone does not establish a constitutional due process violation)
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (dismissal for failure to state a claim constitutes judgment on the merits)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 663 (2009) (standards for pleading and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g))