activity. Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 876 (8th Cir.2004). Santiago’s amended complaint alleges that Clubbs and Blair retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for filing and pursuing his excessive force grievance. Clubbs and Blair do not dispute that Santiago’s use of the prison grievance process satisfies the first prong under Revels. See Haynes v. Stephenson, 588 F.3d 1152, 1155-56 (8th Cir.2009) (“The filing of a prison grievance, like the filing of an inmate lawsuit, is protected First Amendment activity.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We address separately the remaining two prongs with respect to the allegations against Clubbs and Blair. i. Clubbs Santiago alleges that Clubbs subjected him to two adverse actions: 999) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). As set forth earlier, under Revels a prisoner
recognizing right to petition for redress of grievances under established prison grievance system holding that threats to an inmates safety after his use of the prison grievance system supported a retaliation claim recognizing first amendment retaliation claim where official filed a disciplinary report following an inmates filing of a grievance holding prison official must have acted with reckless disregard for the inmates safety holding that district court erred in dismissing inmates complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when court did not address inmates allegation that prison officials failed to provide necessary grievance forms