Was inmate Scott's writing of a prisoner grievance an exercise of his constitutional right?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Was inmate Scott engaged in an activity he was entitled to perform by writing a ; prisoner grievance explaining “3 months earlier he had set his cell on fire and was issue old laundry. He need new laundry.” Was that an exercise of Scott's constitutional right? CORNELL v. Woops 69 F3p 1383; HAYNES v. STEPHENSON 2008 WL 4368994; FRANCO V. KELLEY; 854 F2p 584, 589 (2D Cir 1988); SPROUSE V. BABCOCK 870 F2p 450, 452 (8TH Cir 1989). 2. When Appellee Cook stated: “on 9/18/18 | Sgt. Cook stated an investigation on D. Scott # 131042 after receiving a grievance from D. Scott # 131042” in disciplinary she wrote Scott for stating in grievance he set his cell on fire 3 months earlier. Charging him for setting his cell on fire. Is that retaliation of Scott using prison grievance system. GARLAND V. POLLEY 594 F2D 1220, 1222-23 (8TH CiR 1979): : CORNELL v. Woops 69 F3D 1383; MurPny v. Missouri DEPT OF CORRECTION, 769 F2D 502, 503 (8TH CiR 1985); SPROUSE V. BABCOCK 870 F2p 450, 452 (8TH Cir 1989). 3. Do the “some evidence” standard need to be addressed and change in retaliation cases that it automatically check mate a retaliation case. Cause in the instant case shows flaws in that standard. In this case the District Court; Court of Appeals ruled by Scott admitting in grievance he wrote 3 months later explaining his actions and why he needed laundry was “some evidence” needed to check mate Scott retaliation claim, even though Scott had already received disciplinary for some rule violations. If Scott wouldn't wrote grievance about needing laundry, i Cook wouldn't have wrote grievance, cause cook didn’t write grievance when Scott first burnt all up and she sent him old laundry cause of it. Should retaliation disciplinary inmates alleging be put to a new standard of today’s society. CORNELL v. Woops 69 F3D 1383; GOFF 7 F3D 738; SPROUSE V. BABCOCK 870 F2p 450, 452 (8TH CiR 1989); HAYNES v. STEPHENSON 2008 WL 4368994 ii