Eric Hermansen v. KY Dept. of Corrections, et al

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Damon J. Keith, Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judge.

Case: 13-6159

Document: 006111975667

Filed: 02/26/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0157n.06

FILED

No. 13-6159
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ERIC LLOYD HERMANSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Feb 26, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY

BEFORE: KEITH, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Eric Lloyd Hermansen, a Kentucky state prisoner, appeals through
counsel a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, for failure to state a claim.
Hermansen’s complaint alleged that he was transferred from one prison to another in
retaliation for his helping other inmates with their grievances and court filings. He also asserted
a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which he later abandoned. The district
court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), reasoning that Hermansen had not shown that he was engaged in
protected conduct or that he had been the victim of an adverse action. The court also denied
Hermansen’s motion for reconsideration of these issues. He reasserts his arguments on appeal.

Case: 13-6159

Document: 006111975667

Filed: 02/26/2014

Page: 2

No. 13-6159
Hermansen v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., et al.
The dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Inge v. Rock Fin.
Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2002). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). To state a claim for retaliation in violation of his First
Amendment rights, Hermansen was required to allege that he engaged in protected conduct and
suffered an adverse action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
engage in that conduct. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 395-96 (6th Cir. 1999) (en
banc).
Providing legal assistance to other prisoners has been found to be protected First
Amendment activity where the other prisoners would otherwise be unable to pursue legal
redress. Herron v. Harrison, 203 F.3d 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2000). In Thaddeus-X, the case on
which Hermansen relies, it was demonstrated that an inmate needed the plaintiff’s help to pursue
his legal claim. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 396. Here, Hermansen’s complaint stated only that he
was helping another inmate with a grievance at the time of his transfer. He did not allege that the
inmate was incapable of pursuing his own grievance or had no other source of help. Therefore,
the district court correctly found that Hermansen failed to state a claim as to whether he was
engaged in protected First Amendment conduct.
Moreover, even if Hermansen had alleged protected conduct, he did not allege an adverse
action that would discourage such conduct. Normally, a transfer like this would not qualify as an
adverse action. Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693, 701-02 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Smith v.
Yarrow, 78 F. App’x 529, 543 (6th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). Hermansen points to two cases
where a prison transfer was found to be an adverse action. In Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682,
686-87 (5th Cir. 2006), a transfer to a more dangerous prison unit was found to state a claim of

-2-

Case: 13-6159

Document: 006111975667

Filed: 02/26/2014

Page: 3

No. 13-6159
Hermansen v. Ky. Dep’t of Corr., et al.
an adverse action. In Siggers-El, 412 F.3d at 701-02, a transfer was found to be an adverse
action where the plaintiff lost his job, rendering him unable to pay his attorney, and was moved
to a location that made it difficult for the attorney to visit him, thus impairing his access to the
courts. In Hermansen’s complaint, he did not allege that his new prison assignment was more
dangerous. He also did not complain that his own access to the courts was impaired in any way,
only that of his former fellow inmates.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing this complaint.

-3-