990 F.3d 774
4th Cir.2021Background
- Vernon Earle, a federal inmate serving a life sentence, filed two grievances after a lockdown during which he alleges he was denied hot meals and other privileges following an officer being punched.
- Prison officers allegedly turned Earle’s grievances over to the officer he complained about (Michael Shreves); Earle was then placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for 30 days without explanation.
- After release, Earle alleges the warden admitted the SHU placement was retaliatory; he also lost his prison job and had custody points increased due to his history of filing grievances.
- Earle exhausted internal remedies and sued federal officials, asserting a Bivens claim for First Amendment retaliation and additional Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims; defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants (holding no First Amendment right to file grievances and finding insufficient evidence for other constitutional claims); Earle appealed only the First Amendment Bivens claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bivens extends to a federal inmate’s First Amendment retaliation claim against prison officials | Earle: Bivens permits an implied damages remedy for constitutional violations, including retaliation for filing grievances | Defendants: Post-Ziglar, Bivens should not be extended here; alternate remedies exist and special factors counsel hesitation | Court: This is a new Bivens context; special factors counsel hesitation; decline to extend Bivens to this claim (no damages remedy) |
| Whether special factors preclude recognizing a Bivens remedy for prison-retaliation claims | Earle: Absence of monetary remedy through administrative process supports Bivens extension | Defendants: Administrative remedies and injunctive suits exist; prison discretion and security concerns counsel against judicially imposed damages regime | Court: Special factors—alternate remedies, separation-of-powers concerns, risk of manufactured claims, and intrusion into prison management—preclude recognizing a Bivens remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages action against federal officers for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (established framework restricting expansion of Bivens and requiring consideration of special factors)
- Tun-Cos v. Perrotte, 922 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2019) (applied Ziglar in Fourth Circuit and declined Bivens expansion)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (permitted Bivens recovery for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (permitted Bivens recovery for Fifth Amendment gender-discrimination claim)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (noted Supreme Court has not extended Bivens to First Amendment claims)
- Bistrian v. Levi, 912 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2018) (declined to extend Bivens to inmate First Amendment retaliation claim; highlighted prison-management concerns)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (held an elaborate alternative remedial scheme can preclude implying a damages remedy)