may be granted.” Doc. 20, p. 9, citing Bridges v. Russell, 757 F.2d 1155 (11th Cir.1985); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 (11th Cir.1986). However, in recognizing the existence of a retaliation claim, Defendant argues that he did not retaliate against Plaintiff by transferring him. Doc. 20, p. 10. As noted above, that is not Plaintiffs claim. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant verbally harassed him and threatened him with bodily harm, including death, because Plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Defendant argues that verbal harassment is n 1th Cir. 1989) (noting that if an inmate is disciplined as “the result of his having filed a grievance concerning the conditions of his imprisonment, he” has clearly “raised a constitutional issue”); Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). “Litigation undertaken in good faith by a
holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint recognizing first amendment retaliation right 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 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 recognizing first amendment petition right where inmate alleged retaliation for filing grievances