Guadalupe Gonzalez v. R. Bendt
971 F.3d 742
8th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Guadalupe Gonzalez, a federal inmate, challenged jail officials at FPC Yankton after being denied permission to possess an aviation manual he had at a prior facility.
- Gonzalez filed multiple 2014 grievances (BP-8, BP-9, BP-10) and alleges Correctional Counselor R. Bendt refused to provide BP-8 and BP-11 forms, impeding his administrative appeals.
- Gonzalez sued under § 1983 (interpreted by the district court as a Bivens action) alleging First Amendment retaliation for filing grievances; all other claims were previously dismissed.
- Bendt moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Bivens should not be extended to First Amendment retaliation and (2) he is entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged denials/delays would not chill an inmate of ordinary firmness.
- The district court granted summary judgment; the Eighth Circuit assumed (without deciding) a Bivens analog exists but affirmed because Gonzalez failed to prove the adverse-action/“ordinary-firmness” element.
- The record showed Gonzalez completed informal resolution steps and filed BP-9 and BP-10 appeals; there was no evidence Bendt permanently prevented administrative or judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens supplies a remedy for First Amendment retaliation by federal officials | Bivens (or its analog) applies and supports damages for retaliation | Bivens should not be extended to this context | Court assumed without deciding that a Bivens analog exists and resolved the case on other grounds |
| Whether denial/delay of BP-8/BP-11 forms is an adverse action that would chill a person of ordinary firmness | Denial of forms barred administrative process and as a matter of law chills use of grievance process | Isolated denial/delay of forms is a minor interference and would not deter an ordinary inmate; inmates can bypass steps | Held not adverse here; denial/delay would not chill a person of ordinary firmness |
| Whether Bendt’s conduct actually prevented Gonzalez from exhausting or appealing grievances | Bendt’s refusals barred Gonzalez from completing appeals | Gonzalez was able to file BP-9/BP-10, informal steps were completed, and BOP process permitted bypassing BP-8 | Held Gonzalez pursued grievances and appeals; record shows no bar to exhaustion |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Factual disputes require trial | Undisputed record shows failure to prove an essential element of retaliation; summary judgment proper | Summary judgment affirmed because Gonzalez failed to show the adverse-action/ordinary-firmness element |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (Supreme Court cautions against expanding Bivens)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (Court has not extended Bivens to First Amendment claims)
- Spencer v. Jackson County, 738 F.3d 907 (8th Cir.) (retaliation claim elements and prior reversal of summary judgment)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (exhaustion requires available remedies)
- Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (8th Cir.) (prison grievance filing is First Amendment activity)
- Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d 726 (ordinary-firmness test is objective)