Lawrence Higgins v. Richard Morris
673 F. App'x 376
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Higgins, a TDCJ inmate, tested positive for marijuana, was found guilty of drug possession, and assigned G-4 custody by a three‑person panel.
- Higgins filed a grievance that successfully overturned the disciplinary finding because officer Navarrete failed to sign required paperwork; TDCJ reheard the case and again found him guilty.
- At the rehearing, the new three‑member panel included Navarrete (the unsigned form issue), Betty Germany, and Deleta Jones; Higgins alleges the panel initially favored G-4 but shifted to G-5 after Navarrete identified Higgins as the grievance filer.
- Higgins alleges Navarrete said he would have put Higgins in G-5 “for all this trouble,” Jones changed her vote after that comment and told Higgins to "file another grievance," and Higgins claims the demotion was retaliatory for using the grievance system.
- Higgins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliatory demotion; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and lack of causation; the district court granted summary judgment.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding a genuine dispute of material fact on causation and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Higgins' Argument | Officers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers retaliated in violation of § 1983 by demoting custody after Higgins filed a grievance | Navarrete and panel demoted Higgins in retaliation for filing the grievance; statements and vote change show motive and adverse act | Classification was justified by offense and supervision needs, not retaliation | Genuine dispute of material fact exists as to retaliation; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Whether Higgins showed causation ("but for" retaliation) | Jones switched vote after Navarrete’s remark, so Navarrete’s retaliatory motive caused the G-5 outcome | At least two votes required; one officer’s motive insufficient to show causation | Evidence permits inference that Navarrete influenced Jones; causation is disputed |
| Whether the alleged right (no retaliation for filing grievances) was clearly established | Right to be free from prison official retaliation for grievances is clearly established | Qualified immunity applies because actions were reasonable based on classification factors | Right is clearly established; qualified immunity inappropriate on this record |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given verified pleadings and disputed facts | Verified complaint and facts create competent evidence for summary judgment consideration | Facts do not establish a constitutional violation as a matter of law | Summary judgment improper; case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- DePree v. Saunders, 588 F.3d 282 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment and prisoner pleadings treated as competent evidence)
- Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir.) (retaliation claim standards; "but for" causation)
- Bibbs v. Early, 541 F.3d 267 (5th Cir.) (elements of prisoner retaliation claim)
- Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (5th Cir.) (retaliation pleading requirements)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S.) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S.) (qualified immunity framework)
- McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.) ("but for" causation in retaliation claims)