Christopher Shorter v. United States
12 F.4th 366
| 3rd Cir. | 2021Background
- Chrissy Shorter, a transgender woman on hormone therapy, was housed at FCI Fort Dix in the male general population despite PREA screening finding her at "significantly" higher risk for sexual assault.
- Shorter repeatedly complained, sought transfer to a higher-security facility, and cited BOP policies and the prison’s layout and inmate population as reasons she was at heightened risk.
- Prison officials delayed acting on transfer recommendations, kept her in a cell far from the officer station, and briefly assigned a known sex offender as her cellmate.
- On October 14, 2015, Shorter was raped and stabbed by a fellow inmate; she was later transferred after months of delay.
- Shorter filed a pro se Bivens suit alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference; the district court screened and dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915/1915A for failure to state a claim.
- The Third Circuit reversed: it held a Bivens remedy is available here (consistent with Farmer) and that Shorter’s pro se complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference, so dismissal at screening was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of a Bivens remedy | Shorter: Farmer and Carlson cover prisoner safety Eighth Amendment claims, so Bivens damages are available for prison officials’ failure to protect her. | Gov: Recognizing Bivens here would extend the remedy to a new context and courts should decline under Abbasi. | Court: Not a new Bivens context—Farmer supplies the relevant precedent; Bivens remedy is available. |
| Sufficiency of pleading for deliberate indifference | Shorter: Her repeated, specific complaints, acknowledged risk assessments, and facts about housing and delays plausibly allege subjective knowledge and indifference. | Gov/District Ct: Complaints were "generalized fears" without specific threats; dismissal under screening statutes was proper. | Court: Construing pro se complaint liberally, Shorter plausibly alleged deliberate indifference; dismissal at screening was premature. |
| Whether district court properly dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915/1915A | Shorter: Early dismissal deprived her of discovery and defendants’ answers; allegations suffice to proceed. | District Ct: Screening statute permits dismissal of frivolous or deficient prisoner suits. | Court: Screening dismissal was improper here because facts, taken as true, stated a plausible claim; remand required. |
| Qualified immunity (affirmative defense) | Shorter: N/A (plaintiff argues officials are liable). | Gov: Qualified immunity bars damages. | Court: Declined to decide qualified immunity on appeal because district court did not address it; not obvious from complaint that defense applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing implied damages remedy for constitutional violation by federal agents)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (recognizing Bivens remedy in gender-discrimination employment context)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (recognizing Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard; transgender prisoner safety claim)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (establishes framework limiting extension of Bivens; two-step special-factors inquiry)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 912 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2018) (treats Farmer as supplying the Bivens context for prisoner-protection claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; accept well-pleaded factual allegations at screening)