Ahmed Rucker v. George Harrison
694 F. App'x 203
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ahmed R. Rucker, a Maryland prisoner, sued Lt. George Harrison II under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation for filing grievances about Harrison’s conduct.
- Rucker sued Harrison in both his individual and official capacities.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Harrison, ruling: official-capacity claims barred by sovereign immunity; qualified immunity barred the individual-capacity First Amendment retaliation claim; and several retaliation-related harms did not implicate protected liberty interests.
- The Fourth Circuit reviews summary judgment and qualified immunity de novo, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- After the district court’s decision, this Court decided Booker, holding that the First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing prison grievances was clearly established (at least since 2010), and Harrison’s alleged conduct occurred in 2015.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated the qualified-immunity grant on the individual-capacity First Amendment claim, and remanded for further proceedings; it affirmed the sovereign-immunity ruling as to official-capacity claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether official-capacity §1983 claims survive sovereign immunity | Rucker argued official-capacity suit should proceed against Harrison | Harrison argued sovereign (state) immunity bars official-capacity claims | Court: affirmed district court — sovereign immunity bars official-capacity claims |
| Whether Harrison is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged First Amendment retaliation | Rucker argued he was retaliated against for filing grievances, violating clearly established First Amendment rights | Harrison argued the right was not clearly established and thus qualified immunity applies | Court: vacated district court’s qualified-immunity ruling in light of Booker; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether prisoners have a First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing grievances | Rucker asserted such a right was violated by Harrison’s actions | Harrison disputed that such a clearly established right existed at the time | Court: treated Booker as establishing that the right was clearly established since 2010, undermining Harrison’s qualified-immunity defense |
| Whether Rucker’s alleged harms (disciplinary segregation, lost education, assignment to administrative segregation, transfer) implicated protected liberty interests | Rucker contended these sanctions were retaliatory and constitutionally actionable | Harrison and district court contended those actions did not implicate protected liberty interests | Court: affirmed district court’s conclusion that those harms did not implicate protected liberty interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment and viewing facts for nonmovant)
- Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining qualified immunity framework)
- Raub v. Campbell, 785 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 2015) (clarifying how to assess whether a right is clearly established in context)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (framework for qualified immunity analysis)
- Booker v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., 855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2017) (held First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing prison grievances was clearly established)