Robert Holleman v. Dushan Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873

Background

Plaintiff Robert Holleman, an Indiana prisoner and experienced jailhouse lawyer, filed multiple grievances, a March 2015 lawsuit, an October 11, 2015 newspaper statement, and an October 14, 2015 grievance while housed at Pendleton Correctional Facility.
Pendleton superintendent Dushan Zatecky arranged Holleman’s transfer to Wabash Valley in exchange for another prisoner, stating the transfer was because of Holleman’s multitude of complaints and that a newer facility would benefit him.
The transfer occurred November 20, 2015; both facilities are maximum-security and Holleman was in general population at each.
Holleman alleged adverse effects: reduced law-library access (7→4 hours/week), loss of single cell (now has a cellmate), greater witnessed violence (and an unreported assault), and disruption of his established living situation.
The district court found Holleman engaged in protected First Amendment activity and that his speech was a motivating factor, but granted qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that such a transfer violated constitutional rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding no First Amendment retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the transfer motivated by Holleman's protected activity (causation)?	Zatecky’s admission that Holleman was transferred because of his many complaints shows retaliatory motive.	Transfer was motivated by desire to remedy complaints or provide a better facility (change of scenery), not retaliation.	Transfer was motivated by the substance of Holleman's complaints, not the fact of his protected activity; causation not established.
Was the transfer an "adverse action" likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness?	Reduced law-library time, loss of single cell, more violence, and relocation disruption were adverse and deterrent.	Transfer between comparable maximum-security facilities did not materially worsen conditions; not objectively deterrent.	Transfer was not sufficiently adverse—no major increase in restrictions or demonstrated risk to deter ordinary firmness.
Did the transfer violate Holleman’s First Amendment right to be free from retaliation?	Combining motive and adverse effect, the transfer violated Holleman’s rights.	No—either motive or adversity lacking, so no constitutional violation.	No constitutional violation: plaintiff failed both the causation and adversity requirements.
Was the right clearly established (qualified immunity)?	Holleman contends retaliation law protects against transfers as retaliation.	Defendants contend no precedent clearly establishes a right to remain in a particular prison placement.	Court did not need to decide clarity because no violation was found; lower court’s view that right was not clearly established was affirmed implicitly.

Key Cases Cited

Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner can state retaliation claim for transfer even if transfer itself is not an independent constitutional violation)
Hoskins v. Lenear, 395 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2005) (conduct not independently unconstitutional can support retaliation claim if motivated by improper purpose)
Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes transfers motivated by remedying complaints from transfers motivated by the fact of suing)
Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 1996) (transfer into segregated, more restrictive housing can be retaliatory)
Buise v. Hudkins, 584 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1978) (transfer from minimum- to maximum-security can amount to retaliation)
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (prisoner has no protected liberty interest in assignment to a particular prison)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (courts must afford wide deference to prison administrators in maintaining order and security)
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (limits judicial involvement in day-to-day prison management)
Surita v. Hyde, 665 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2011) (adverse-action standard: likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (prisoners must tolerate more than citizens before action is deemed adverse)
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009) (elements required to prove a First Amendment retaliation claim)
Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard of de novo review for qualified immunity on summary judgment)