actions, and is not a means whereby solely egregious retaliatory acts are allowed to proceed past summary judgment. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 398 (emphasis added); see also Bart, 677 F.2d at 625. Thus, unless the claimed retaliatory action is truly “inconsequential,” the plaintiffs claim should go to the jury. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 398. Applying this standard in Thaddeus-X, a majority of the en banc court decided to remand Bell’s retaliation claims to the district court for determination of whether “there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the deterrent effect of the claimed deliberate harassment and cold meals that would continue unless and until he dropped his lawsuit against the warden.” e that 1986) (same); Hall v. Sutton, 755 F.2d 786, 787-88 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568,
holding that an inmate may still present a first amendment retaliation claim even though the complaint alleges facts that might not otherwise be offensive to the constitution such as a search or the confiscation and destruction of nonlegal materials recognizing first amendment petition right where inmate alleged retaliation for filing grievances holding that inmate alleged sufficient facts to state a claim of first amendment retaliation based upon the alleged confiscation of his tennis shoes in retaliation for a prior lawsuit against prison officials holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials recognizing first amendment retaliation right