Anthony Martin v. Susan Duffy, 858 F.3d 239

Background

Martin, an inmate at Perry Correctional Institution, filed an electronic grievance alleging a sergeant inappropriately touched him; the next day Captain Susan Duffy moved him to a holding cell and placed him in segregation.
Martin remained in segregation for 110 days, alleges he received no segregation hearing or investigation updates, and later refused to rejoin the general population.
Martin filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging First Amendment retaliation, Equal Protection violation, and procedural due process violations (including loss of good-time credits).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit (1) found appellate jurisdiction despite dismissal without prejudice, (2) held Martin sufficiently pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim, (3) rejected qualified immunity for Duffy, (4) affirmed dismissal of the Equal Protection claim as duplicative of the retaliation claim, and (5) affirmed dismissal of the procedural due process claim for failure to plead atypical and significant hardship.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation: did placement in segregation after filing a grievance state a claim?	Martin: filing a grievance is protected activity and Duffy placed him in segregation the next day, causing adverse action and causal link.	Duffy: district courts previously read Adams to bar grievances-based retaliation claims; also asserted qualified immunity.	Yes. Court: complaint plausibly alleges protected activity, adverse action (110 days segregation), and causation; retaliation claim survives.
Qualified immunity: is Duffy protected from damages?	Martin: n/a (argued claim).	Duffy: her actions were protected because law was not clearly established.	No. Court: Booker established that inmates have a right to file grievances free from retaliation; right was clearly established by 2014.
Equal Protection: did Martin state an equal protection claim?	Martin: he was treated differently than other inmates who filed similar grievances.	Duffy: treatment was permissible or not shown to be discriminatory.	No. Court: claim is essentially a recharacterized retaliation claim and not a standalone equal protection violation.
Procedural Due Process: did Martin allege a protected liberty interest and atypical/ significant hardship from segregation?	Martin: state procedures required prompt review and his 110-day confinement without hearing violated due process and cost him good-time credits.	Duffy: South Carolina law creates no protected liberty interest in avoiding classification/segregation; conditions not atypical.	Partly no. Court: state policy created an interest (review/limits alleged), but Martin failed to plead facts showing atypical and significant hardship; due-process claim dismissed (good-time-credit claim waived on appeal).

Key Cases Cited

Booker v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., 855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2017) (clearly established that inmates may not be retaliated against for filing grievances)
Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim)
Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity standard; clearly established law requirement)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prisoners retain First Amendment rights, including to petition for redress)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (atypical and significant hardship test for prison due process liberty interest)
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (grievance procedures do not create substantive constitutional rights — discussed as basis for dismissal by lower courts)
Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity inquiry framework)