Spencer v. Jackson County Missouri
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25679
8th Cir.2013Background
- Spencer, a detainee, sued Jackson County, Missouri and detention-center staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting First Amendment retaliation claims.
- He was approved for the Inmate Worker Program (trustee program) in Feb 2005, worked in the kitchen, and enjoyed program privileges.
- After a course of prior interactions, he left the program in 2005 for treatment, then re-entered and remained until June 2005.
- In Oct 2009, Spencer faced a new theft-related charge but was again approved for the trustee program, and shortly after spoke with Carter regarding a lawsuit against her.
- On Oct 28, 2009, Carter terminated him from the trustee program and moved him to a less privileged module (H to D) following the confrontation.
- Spencer filed numerous JPOs and grievances; Carter, Anthony, and Williams allegedly obstructed access to grievance forms or delayed responses, including after he complained about perceived retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was removal from the trustee program retaliatory? | Spencer alleges removal was retaliation for filing suit. | Carter asserts discipline based on qualification/historical behavior; removal not retaliatory. | Genuine dispute as to retaliation; admissible evidence supports motive. |
| Was the H→D module transfer retaliatory? | Becomes adverse action tied to protected activity (grievances). | Transfer could be justified by management decisions and safety concerns. | There is a genuine issue of material fact about retaliatory motive. |
| Did obstruction of grievance forms amount to retaliation? | Anthony/Williams retaliated by denying/grievance-form access after grievances. | Responses were within policy or misunderstandings occurred. | Genuine issue of material fact as to retaliatory motive. |
| Did the district court err in granting qualified immunity? | First Amendment retaliation rights were violated; immunity inappropriate. | Right to file suit and access grievance process well established; qualified immunity may apply. | Reversed for further proceedings because genuine issues of material fact exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1993) (inmate retaliation claims require protected activity and adverse action)
- Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (inmate right to grievance process; retaliatory access can violate §1983)
- Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal transfers; causal link to protected expression required)
- Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 2004) (adverse action requires chilling effect from protected activity)
- Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203 (8th Cir. 1990) (denial of privileges can be adverse action when qualified)
- Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2001) (retaliation includes adverse actions for protected activity)