1. Was inmate Scott engaged in an activity he was entitled to perform by writing a
prisoner grievance explaining "3 months earlier he had set his cell on fire and
was issue old laundry. He need new laundry. " Was that an exercise of Scott 's
constitutional right? Cornell v. Woods 69 F3d 1383 ; Haynes v. Stephenson
2008 WL 4368994 ; Franco v. Kelley : 854 F2p 584. 589 (2d Cir 1988) ;
Sprouse v. Babcock 870 F2d 450,452 (8th Cir 1989).

2. When Appellee Cook stated: "on 9/18/18 I Sgt. Cook stated an investigation on D.
Scott # 131042 after receiving a grievance from D. Scott # 131042 " in disciplinary
she wrote Scott for stating in grievance he set his cell on fire 3 months earlier.
Charging him for setting his cell on fire. Is that retaliation of Scott using prison
grievance system. Garland v. Polley 594 f2d 1220,1222-23 (8th Cir 1979) :
Cornell v. Woods 69 f3p 1383 : Murphy v. Missouri Dept of Correction ,
769 f2d 502, 503 (8th Cir 19851 : Sprouse v. Babcock 870 F2d 450. 452 (8th
Cir 1989).

3. Do the "some evidence " standard need to be addressed and change in retaliation
cases that it automatically check mate a retaliation case. Cause in the instant
case shows flaws in that standard. In this case the District Court; Court of
Appeals ruled by Scott admitting in grievance he wrote 3 months later explaining
his actions and why he needed laundry was "some evidence " needed to check
mate Scott retaliation claim, even though Scott had already received disciplinary
for some rule violations. If Scott wouldn 't wrote grievance about needing laundry,
i

Cook wouldn 't have wrote grievance, cause cook didn 't write grievance when
Scott first burnt all up and she sent him old laundry cause of it. Should retaliation
disciplinary inmates alleging be put to a new standard of today 's society.
Cornell v. Woods 69 f3p 1383 : Goff 7 f3d 738 : Sprouse v. Babcock 870
F2d 450, 452 (8th Cir 1989) : Haynes v. Stephenson 2008 WL 4368994

Was inmate Scott's writing of a prisoner grievance an exercise of his constitutional right?