to create unrest through his abuse of the grievance process. King IV, 2009 WL 3424221, at *9 (“To the extent that Defendants were motivated in transferring King based upon his manipulation of other prisoners to file grievances to achieve King’s own goals, they did not retaliate against him on the basis of any protected conduct.”). Embedded in this conclusion is both a legal error and a factual one. The legal problem is that the district court, following analysis from this court, already concluded as a matter of law that King’s assistance to other prisoners in using the grievance system was protected conduct. R. 158 (Dist. Ct. Mem. Op. & Order at 14). Abusive or manipulative use of a grievance system would not be protected conduct. See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 472 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, to conclude now that King was in
recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding no first amendment right to file frivolous grievances recognizing that prisoners undoubtedly exercise first amendment petition right when filing grievances and stating that prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for filing grievances recognizing first amendment petition right where inmate alleged retaliation for filing grievances holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials