Patrick Booker v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7563

Booker, an SCDC inmate, submitted a Request to Staff Member (RSM) after receiving damaged legal mail; the mailroom supervisor (Jones) received the RSM and shortly thereafter filed an “809” disciplinary charge accusing Booker of threatening staff.
The disciplinary hearing found Booker not guilty of a physical threat (characterizing any statements as legal threats), but the charge carried serious penalties if sustained.
Booker sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation for filing the grievance; defendants removed the case and moved for summary judgment.
The district court originally granted summary judgment on the merits but this Court vacated as to the retaliation claim and remanded; on remand the district court granted qualified immunity, finding the right to submit internal grievances was not clearly established.
The Fourth Circuit panel (majority) reversed the qualified-immunity ruling: it held that an inmate’s First Amendment right (Petition Clause) to be free from retaliation for filing a grievance was clearly established by consensus among other circuits and by governing First Amendment principles and SCDC policy.
A dissent argued Adams v. Rice (4th Cir.) and related Fourth Circuit authority reasonably could be read to foreclose the claim, so qualified immunity should apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether filing an internal prison grievance implicates a First Amendment right (petition/free speech) protected from retaliation	Booker: filing a grievance is an exercise of the Petition Clause/right to petition and is protected; retaliation for filing is unconstitutional	Defendants: Adams v. Rice and related Fourth Circuit decisions show inmates have no constitutional right to participate in grievance procedures; filing a grievance is not a protected right	Held: The panel majority: yes — filing a grievance is protected by the First Amendment (Petition Clause) for purposes of a retaliation claim; Adams does not resolve the issue against Booker
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for filing a disciplinary charge in retaliation for a grievance	Booker: law was clearly established — consensus of circuits and broader First Amendment principles, plus SCDC policy, gave fair warning that retaliation is unlawful	Defendants: no clearly established right in this circuit in 2010; Adams permitted reasonable belief their conduct was lawful	Held: Majority: no qualified immunity — right was clearly established by a strong consensus of other circuits and broader precedent and SCDC policy; Dissent: would grant qualified immunity relying on Adams

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity framework; courts may decide order of steps)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (existing precedent must place question beyond debate for clearly established rule)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (broader principles and official policies can inform fair‑warning analysis)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity purpose and standard)
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72 (4th Cir. 1994) (no constitutional entitlement to a grievance procedure; relied on by dissent)
Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1988) (recognizing retaliation/disciplinary filing in retaliation for cooperation/state investigation as actionable)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing First Amendment petition claim for retaliation based on filing grievances)
Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding First Amendment violated when prisoner punished for filing grievance)
Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (prisoners exercise Petition Clause rights when filing grievances; retaliation unlawful)
Dixon v. Brown, 38 F.3d 379 (8th Cir. 1994) (disciplinary charge actionable if in retaliation for filing a grievance)