Davis v. Prison Health Services
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9548
6th Cir.2012Background
- Davis, an insulin-dependent diabetic inmate, was removed from a prison public-works off-site program allegedly due to his sexual orientation.
- He alleged officers treated him differently from non-homosexual inmates, ridiculed him, and made derogatory remarks after returning from assignments.
- Davis claimed a honey packet was not handed to him directly during a Low-Blood-Sugar episode, suggesting animus toward his sexuality.
- A nurse evaluated him; medical staff found no low blood sugar, yet the health unit manager ordered removal from the program.
- Davis filed a grievance; the response claimed a sugar low prompted early return and admitted non-compliance with diabetic recommendations.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding lack of similarly situated evidence and that Engquist barred the claim; this court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis plausibly alleges anti-gay animus as the reason for removal | Davis alleged differential treatment tied to sexual orientation. | Removal was rationally related to safety/health and not based on orientation. | Davis pleaded plausible anti-gay discrimination under equal protection. |
| Whether district court relied on grievance response rather than complaint | Court erred by weighing grievance statements over Davis's factual allegations. | District court properly used the grievance record to assess plausibility. | District court erred; must treat Davis's allegations as true at pleading. |
| Whether Engquist bars the claim as a class-of-one or related rational-basis claim | Engquist does not bar a class-based discrimination claim based on sexual orientation. | Engquist precludes rational-basis challenges to discretionary state employment decisions. | Engquist does not bar this traditional class-based equal protection claim. |
| Whether the case is improperly categorized as class-of-one under Engquist | Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on sex orientation, not arbitrary one-off treatment. | Engquist precludes such rational-basis reviews in employment contexts. | Claim not a class-of-one; Engquist not controlling for this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (discrimination claims need not plead a prima facie case at pleading stage)
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one claims barred in public employment; rational-basis review limited)
- Olech v. Village of Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one theory exists for arbitrary equal protection claims)
- Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856 (6th Cir.1997) (anti-gay animus can violate equal protection)
- Club Italia Soccer & Sports Organization v. Charter Twp. of Shelby, 470 F.3d 286 (6th Cir.2006) (distinction between class-of-one and rational-basis claims; overbreadth of Club Italia language)