Paul Butts v. Marcus Martin
877 F.3d 571
5th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Paul Richard Butts, a Hasidic Jewish federal inmate at FCC Beaumont, was alleged to have been forced to choose between eating and wearing his yarmulke on Dec. 19, 2010; Lieutenant Martinez confronted him about a non-“BOP issued” gray yarmulke, Butts left rather than remove his yarmulke.
- Martinez filed an incident report accusing Butts of lying about a gray yarmulke; Butts was placed in the SHU, strip-searched, and his cell/property were searched multiple times though no gray yarmulke was found. Commissary privileges were later removed for 30 days.
- Butts pursued BOP administrative remedies through BP-8, BP-9, BP-10, and a BP-11; his BP-11 focused on Martinez and requested investigation and sanctioning of Martinez; the National Administrator denied relief and expunged the incident report.
- Butts filed a pro se Bivens suit alleging Free Exercise (First Amendment), retaliation, Fourth Amendment unlawful searches, due process violations (disciplinary procedures and property), equal protection, and other claims; the district court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims for failure to exhaust except insofar as a procedural defect in the disciplinary conviction was found.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit held Butts failed to exhaust claims against defendants other than Martinez, but found genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Butts’s Free Exercise and retaliation claims against Martinez and remanded those claims for further proceedings (including consideration whether a Bivens remedy is available and appointment of counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion (claims vs. non-Martinez defendants) | Butts’s attached factual summary and administrative submissions put officials on notice of multiple claims | Defendants: grievances addressed only disciplinary appeal; BOP process limits issues per form | Held: Affirmed dismissal for failure to exhaust as to all defendants except Martinez; Butts did not sufficiently exhaust claims against others |
| Exhaustion (claims vs. Martinez) | BP-9 through BP-11 consistently alleged Martinez violated religious rights and retaliated; these issues are closely related to the disciplinary appeal | Defendants: grievances challenged only UDC conviction correctness; BP-11 did not raise other constitutional claims | Held: Reversed as to Martinez for retaliation and Free Exercise — those claims were exhausted and closely related to disciplinary appeal; Fourth Amendment search claim was not exhausted |
| Free Exercise (merits & Bivens availability) | Martinez forced Butts to choose between religion and eating; disputed factual issue (color of yarmulke) makes Turner analysis (reasonableness) inappropriate for summary judgment | Martinez asserted legitimate penological interest in enforcing headwear rules and institutional security; argued denial of a single meal is not a substantial burden | Held: Summary judgment improper on Free Exercise merits because factual dispute (yarmulke color/authorization) precludes resolution; court remanded for further factfinding and directed district court to consider whether a Bivens remedy exists and appoint counsel |
| Retaliation (merits & Bivens availability) | Butts alleges he informed staff he would grieve Martinez; soon after Martinez accused him, wrote him up, and sent him to SHU — creating an inference of retaliatory motive and causation | Defendants contended Martinez’s version (that rule violation occurred) negated retaliatory motive; district court credited Martinez and granted summary judgment | Held: Summary judgment improper — viewed in plaintiff’s favor, allegations support a plausible retaliation claim; remanded for further proceedings and for the district court to consider Bivens remedy and appointment of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (implied damages remedy against federal officers)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion under PLRA requires compliance with prison procedural rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner claims including Bivens-type actions)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (standard for when prison regulations that burden constitutional rights are reasonably related to penological interests)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (limits and framework for Bivens extensions and pleading standards)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (special factors counseling hesitation in extending Bivens)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (standard for when prison disciplinary sanctions implicate liberty interests)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens extended to certain Fifth Amendment contexts)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens extended to Eighth Amendment contexts)