Pinson v. United States Department of Justice
246 F. Supp. 3d 211
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Jeremy Pinson, a pro se federal prisoner, sued BOP officials Charles Samuels and John Dignam (official and individual capacities) alleging First Amendment retaliation (refusal to investigate administrative complaints, transfer to ADX Florence, and other harassment).
- Pinson alleges protected activities: media interviews, blogging, tweeting, filing lawsuits, and assisting other inmates. She alleges OIA agents and a unit manager told her Dignam (and at Samuels’s direction) would not investigate unless she stopped media contacts and litigation.
- Pinson alleges Samuels personally authorized her transfer to ADX Florence and told staff to prevent her media contacts and lawsuits; Samuels admits approving the transfer but denies any retaliatory motive. The ADX hearing report documents a significant disciplinary record supporting a non-retaliatory basis for transfer.
- The DOJ moved to dismiss and alternatively for summary judgment, arguing (inter alia) that Bivens does not extend to these First Amendment claims, lack of personal involvement, absence of adverse action/chill, qualified immunity, and legitimate penological reasons for transfer.
- The Court (D.D.C.) denied the motion to dismiss, denied summary judgment on claims that defendants refused to investigate Pinson’s complaints and that Samuels ordered/authorized her transfer to ADX (genuine fact disputes), granted summary judgment for other miscellaneous retaliation claims, denied Pinson’s motion to amend, and denied her supplemental discovery request as premature while appointing limited pro bono counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Bivens for First Amendment retaliation | Pinson: Bivens covers First Amendment retaliation by federal officials | DOJ: Supreme Court has not recognized Bivens for First Amendment claims; remedy limited | Court: D.C. Circuit precedent permits Bivens First Amendment retaliation claims; not dismissed |
| Personal involvement of Samuels and Dignam | Pinson: alleges meetings/statements showing they directed refusal to investigate and Samuels authorized transfer | DOJ: insufficient direct evidence of personal participation; relies on subordinates and neutral transfer process | Court: Allegations are sufficient at pleading stage and create genuine disputes for summary judgment on investigation and transfer claims |
| Adverse action / chilling effect standard | Pinson: denial of investigation, threats, and transfer are chilling and thus actionable | DOJ: Pinson wasn’t chilled (continued litigation); no concrete adverse harm from refusal to investigate | Court: Proper test is whether action would deter a person of ordinary firmness; refusal to investigate and transfer to ADX meet that standard plausibly |
| Summary judgment on specific claims | Pinson: proffers statements by OIA/unit staff and a hearing officer’s comment that Samuels tied transfer to cessation of speech | DOJ: submits Samuels’s sworn denial and the ADX hearing report showing disciplinary grounds | Held: Summary judgment denied for refusal-to-investigate and retaliatory-transfer claims (genuine credibility disputes); granted for other miscellaneous retaliation claims lacking evidence linking Samuels |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action against federal agents)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens remedy exists for certain constitutional violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; officials liable only for own conduct)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (discussing First Amendment retaliation and causation)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (prisoner retaliation; qualified immunity and retaliation law)
- Toolasprashad v. Bureau of Prisons, 286 F.3d 576 (transfer/reclassification can chill prisoner speech)
- Haynesworth v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. recognizing Bivens claim for First Amendment retaliation)
- Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. assumed Bivens remedy for alleged retaliatory placement in more restrictive conditions)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity framework)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity standard)