United States Constitution and Article I, § 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir.2003), the Third Circuit recently addressed whether a prisoner’s retaliation claim sufficiently stated a claim under Sec tion 1988 for violation of an inmate’s First Amendment rights. It stated as follows: [Prisoner’s] allegation that he was falsely charged with misconduct in retaliation for filing complaints against [the Corrections] Officer ... implicates conduct protected by the First Amendment. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653 (3d Cir.2002) (“We have ... held that falsifying misconduct reports in retaliation for an inmate’s resort to legal process is a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free access to the courts.”); Allah, 229 F.3d at 225 (<HOLDING>); Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 275-76 (7th
holding that absent extraordinary circumstances administrative segregation as such being an incident to the ordinary life of a prisoner will never be a ground for a constitutional claim holding that inmates allegation that guards destroyed his legal materials in retaliation for his filing of suits and grievances stated a cognizable first amendment claim holding that discrimination and retaliation claims are considered distinct types of claims that must be raised independently if the retaliation occurred prior to the filing of the administrative charge 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 an allegation that a prisoner was kept in administrative segregation to punish him for filing civil rights complaints stated a retaliation claim