David Clark v. N. Johnston, 413 F. App'x 804

Clark, a prisoner, sued prison officials under §1983 for retaliation and other claims after events in 2005 at Ohio State Penitentiary.
District court granted summary judgment on several claims and sua sponte dismissed many counts, leaving a retaliation claim based on segregation after speaking with an ODRC official.
There was a central 2.4 cubic feet property-limit policy; district court addressed whether property confiscation and segregation were retaliatory.
Clark moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity; defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue, arguing no protected conduct or no clearly established right.
Magistrate Judge Limbert recommended partial denial and partial granting; district court later granted withdrawal of admissions and granted summary judgment on qualified immunity.
On appeal, court affirmed some dismissals, reversed others, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, concluding Clark had to prove protected conduct for retaliation and addressing access-to-courts and equal-protection claims differently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark proved the underlying retaliation claim	Clark contends protected conduct occurred and caused adverse action.	No protected conduct or clearly established right; actions not retaliatory.	Qualified immunity granted; no constitutional violation proved.
Whether denial-of-access-to-courts claim survives	Confiscated legal materials prejudiced ongoing or future litigation.	No actual prejudice or nonfrivolous underlying claim shown.	Dismissed under 1915(e).
Whether the equal-protection claim survives under class-of-one theory	Policies enforced to discriminate against Clark without rational basis.	No plausible class-of-one claim; no showing of intentional different treatment.	Dismissed.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in discovery/admissions rulings	Withdrawals of admissions prejudiced meritorious defense and discovery.	Withdrawal was within Rule 36(b) discretion and did not prejudice Clark.	No abuse of discretion; withdrawal affirmed.
Whether the amended complaint should be considered with original pleading	Both complaints should be considered to decide merits.	Amended pleading supersedes original; district court could rely on amended pleading.	Amended pleading governs; outcome unchanged.

Siggers-El v. Barlow, 412 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2005) (protects access to courts where conduct is part of accessing the courts)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (retaliation standard elements for First Amendment claim)
Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2002) (confiscation of legal papers can support retaliation claim)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1996) (requirement of actual prejudice for denial of access to courts)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (Turner factors for prison regulations related to access rights)
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-of-one doctrine not universally applicable (context-specific))
Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2005) (prisoners’ access-to-courts pleading standards)