Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 878 F.3d 89

Background

Plaintiff Paul Thompson, a Virginia inmate, alleged that during transport on April 8, 2010 officers Cooper (driver) and Diming (passenger) gave him a "rough ride": erratic driving while he was shackled and (according to Thompson) unbelted, causing physical injuries.
Thompson claims officers taunted him and said the ride was punishment for filing grievances and lawsuits; officers deny wrongdoing and say Thompson banged his head and was disruptive.
After the incident Thompson was charged disciplinarily for lying about being assaulted, placed in segregation following a hearing, and pursued administrative grievances he alleges were mishandled.
Thompson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments) and asserted related Virginia constitutional claims; the district court granted summary judgment for all defendants.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it reversed dismissal as to Cooper and Diming on Eighth Amendment (Cooper: excessive force; Diming: deliberate indifference/bystander liability) and First Amendment retaliation (as to Cooper and Diming), affirmed dismissal as to supervisory defendants and due-process/segregation claims, and remanded the state-law claims for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment — excessive force (Cooper)	Cooper intentionally caused the van to be driven erratically to injure/terrify Thompson (a compliant, shackled inmate), constituting malicious use of force.	Driving-related injuries or failure to seatbelt were negligent or nonpunitive; no clearly established law for "rough ride" liability.	Reversed: sufficient facts for excessive force; right clearly established by Supreme Court and circuit precedent.
Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference/bystander failure to protect (Diming)	Diming knew Thompson was unbelted, witnessed erratic driving/taunting, failed to intervene or secure seatbelt, creating substantial risk.	Defendants disputed recklessness/intent and argued lack of subjective knowledge or actionable risk.	Reversed: facts permit a reasonable jury to find deliberate indifference and the right was clearly established.
First Amendment — retaliation (Cooper & Diming)	The rough ride and taunts were retaliatory for Thompson’s frequent grievances/lawsuits.	Defendants denied retaliatory motive; district court relied on earlier precedent to dismiss.	Reversed as to Cooper and Diming; remand for further proceedings in light of intervening Fourth Circuit law (Booker).
Fourteenth Amendment / due process re disciplinary hearing & segregation	Thompson contends sham charge/hearing and extended segregation violated due process.	Defendants argue confinement in administrative segregation does not implicate a protected liberty interest absent extraordinary conditions.	Affirmed: Thompson failed to show conditions or duration creating a protected liberty interest.
Supervisory liability (Jennings, Dolan, Baskerville, etc.)	Supervisors failed to prevent/stop retaliation and unsafe transport.	No specific facts linking supervisors to knowledge or acquiescence; only conclusory allegations.	Affirmed: summary judgment for supervisors due to lack of specific evidence.
State-law claims (Virginia Constitution and related torts)	State claims dependent on federal claims; sought to proceed in federal court.	District court dismissed state claims after dismissing federal claims.	Reversed and remanded: because some federal claims survive, state claims should be reconsidered by the district court.

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical/conditions claims)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) (excessive force standard: malicious/sadistic vs. good-faith force)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (excessive force may violate Eighth Amendment even without significant injury)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference test for failure-to-protect)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (gratuitous force violates Eighth Amendment irrespective of injury magnitude)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established law and fair warning principle)
Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir.) (applying Whitley factors; excessive force via pepper spray)
Odom v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 349 F.3d 765 (4th Cir.) (officer who stands by during attack can be liable)
Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (4th Cir.) (administrative segregation does not create liberty interest absent extraordinary conditions)