Charles Hoye v. I.T. Gilmore
691 F. App'x 764
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles T. Hoye, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging First Amendment retaliation after filing prison grievances.
- Hoye alleges defendants transferred him from Coffeewood Correctional Center (CWCC) to Deep Meadow Correctional Center (DMCC) in retaliation.
- Hoye claims the transfer placed him farther from family (about an extra hour one-way) making visits “practically impossible” and increased long‑distance phone costs, reducing ability to call his children.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a retaliation claim.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo and accepted Hoye’s grievance‑filing as protected conduct but considered whether the alleged harms constituted an adverse action likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness.
- The panel affirmed dismissal, concluding the transfer and unspecified phone‑cost increase were insufficient to show adverse action or chilling of First Amendment rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing prison grievances is protected First Amendment activity | Hoye: filing grievances is protected speech | State: (implicitly) even if protected, other elements lacking | Held: Filing grievances is protected (citing Booker) |
| Whether transfer and increased phone costs constitute adverse action that would deter protected activity | Hoye: transfer far from family and higher phone costs made visits/calls practically impossible, deterring grievances | State: transfer was minor (≈70 miles), commonplace, and any cost increase unspecified and insubstantial; would not deter a prisoner of ordinary firmness | Held: Transfer and unspecified phone‑cost increase are not adverse actions; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (prisoner retaliation claims viewed with skepticism to avoid micromanaging prison discipline)
- Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (adverse action if likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising First Amendment rights)
- Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2017) (prisoners have a constitutional right to file grievances free from retaliation)
- Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2005) (ordinary prisoner expected to endure transfers; ordinary transfers generally do not deter protected conduct)
- Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (transfer thousands of miles that separates prisoner from sick family can constitute adverse action)
- Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2010) (placement in segregated or lockdown housing can constitute adverse action)
- Am. Civil Liberties Union of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico Cty., 999 F.2d 780 (4th Cir. 1993) (inconvenience alone does not necessarily chill First Amendment rights)