to First Amendment protection, however, regardless whether the statement is true at the time it is made. See United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. at 2547. Peña’s activity in reporting Vallejos’ assault, which is the basis of the CCA’s and Hickson's alleged retaliation, is constitutionally protected regardless whether Vallejos committed a battery against Peña or violated her constitutional rights as a matter of law. That Peña fails to plead sufficient factual allegations to make plausible her allegation that Vallejos violated her constitutional rights or is liable for civil battery thus does not invalidate her basing the § 19 83. claim for retaliation on her reporting the incident to CCA prison officials. See Zarska v. Higgins, 171 Fed.Appx. 255, 259-60 (10th Cir.2006)(unpublished)(<HOLDING>). 8 . None of the parties raised the issue
holding that a prisoners allegations that a corrections officer retaliated against the prisoner for the prisoners report charging the officer with misconduct properly stated a claim for retaliation noting that aji allegation of retaliation should not be ignored simply because the charge was later dismissed  holding that allegations that a prison guard retaliated against a prisoner by terrorizing him with threats of death if proved would constitute a violation of the prisoners first amendment rights holding that prisoners complaint alleging that he was punished for filing a grievance against a correctional officer was sufficient to provide notice of claim that he was retaliated against for exercising his first amendment rights holding that an allegation that a prisoner was kept in administrative segregation to punish him for filing civil rights complaints stated a retaliation claim holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation