Vincent v. Stalder, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30150
Summary Calendar
HAROLD J. VINCENT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER; ET AL.,
Defendants,
RICHARD L. STALDER; JOHNNY CREED,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-665
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard L. Stalder and Johnny Creed appeal the district
court’s denial of their motion to dismiss a civil rights
complaint filed against them by Harold J. Vincent, Louisiana
state prisoner # 73128. The appellants contend that they were
entitled to a dismissal based on the defense of qualified
immunity because Vincent failed to allege specific facts to

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-30150
-2-
support his claim that his transfer to the Louisiana State
Penitentiary (Angola) was in retaliation for his exercising his
right of access to the courts.
Vincent’s allegations were sufficient to defeat a motion to
dismiss based on qualified immunity. Viewing Vincent’s
allegations as true, they reflect that he was suddenly
transferred to Angola after being incarcerated at the David Wade
Correctional Center (Wade) for eleven years and that the transfer
occurred shortly after Vincent refused the warden’s demand to end
his involvement in the grand jury’s investigation of the Wade
facility. His allegations further reflect that Stalder and Creed
were required to approve the transfer and, thus, it can be
inferred that they were advised of the reason for the transfer or
would have questioned the reason for the sudden change in
Vincent’s security status. The allegations concerning the
circumstances surrounding Vincent’s transfer raise a plausible
inference that it was in retaliation for his exercising his right
of access to the courts, a clearly established constitutional
right. See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir.
1998); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir 1995). The
district court did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to
dismiss based on the insufficiency of Vincent’s allegations to
defeat their defense of qualified immunity.
Vincent’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED
because he has demonstrated his ability to provide himself with

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-30150
-3-
adequate representation on appeal. See Ulmers v. Chancellor, 691
F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --