Scott v. Churchill

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2004
• Docket: 03-2427
• Status: Published

Opinion

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Scott v. Churchill, et al. No. 03-2427 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0235P (6th Cir.) File Name: 04a0235p.06 _________________ COUNSEL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ARGUED: Kevin R. Himebaugh, OFFICE OF THE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. _________________ S. Grace Davis, MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & CUMMISKEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. DAVID J. SCOTT, X ON BRIEF: Kevin R. Himebaugh, OFFICE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. - S. Grace Davis, David R. Cleveland, MILLER, JOHNSON, - No. 03-2427 SNELL & CUMMISKEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for v. - Appellee. > , _________________ PATRICK CHURCH ILL, - Inspector, Carson City - OPINION Regional Facility, et al., - _________________ Defendants, - - KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant- - Appellant Philip Bair (“Bair”) appeals from the denial of PHILIP BAIR , - qualified immunity in Plaintiff-Appellee David J. Scott’s Defendant-Appellant. - (“Scott”) § 1983 suit against him. Scott, a prisoner at the N Michigan Department of Corrections Carson City Regional Appeal from the United States District Court Facility, alleges that Bair, a guard at the facility, retaliated for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. against Scott’s exercise of his First Amendment rights by No. 95-00571—David W. McKeague, District Judge. filing a false major misconduct ticket against Scott. This is the third time this court has heard an appeal in this case on the Argued: June 11, 2004 issue of the proper standard governing prisoner First Amendment retaliation claims; contested in this appeal is the Decided and Filed: July 23, 2004 standard that would have been apparent to a reasonable officer when the underlying events took place, in July of Before: SILER, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit 1995. Because this court’s case law in July of 1995 would Judges.* have put a reasonable officer on fair warning that his conduct was illegal, the denial of qualified immunity is AFFIRMED.

* The Ho norable B obb y R. B aldock, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

1 No. 03-2427 Scott v. Churchill, et al. 3 4 Scott v. Churchill, et al. No. 03-2427

I. BACKGROUND Bair and another guard, Dale Feldpausch (“Feldpausch”). Thomas stated that Bair described the events of the morning As the nonmoving party, it is Scott’s version of the facts to Feldpausch, consonant with Scott’s version of the facts. which must be relied upon. On July 6, 1995, Scott was Bair told Feldpausch that he did not like Scott, due to Scott’s required to meet with a hearing officer on an unrelated repeated conflicts with Feldpausch over Scott’s jailhouse misconduct ticket. Upon Scott’s checking in with Bair to lawyer activities. Feldpausch recommended to Bair that in gain entry to the building, Bair said to Scott of his misconduct order to cover up his wrongdoing, Bair should write a false ticket, “[T]hat doesn’t surprise me.” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) ticket against Scott, alleging that Bair had patted down Scott at 174. Scott asked Bair to explain this remark and indicated after a verbal threat — the version of events Bair would that he was considering filing a grievance against Bair. At ultimately write up in the Misconduct Charge. Thomas also that point, Bair walked over to where Scott was standing and stated that Feldpausch had told Bair that to conceal more stated, “You don’t know who you’re f---ing with.” J.A. at 34. effectively his wrongdoing, Bair should have immediately Bair then grabbed the back of Scott’s neck and continued, written the false ticket and taken Scott to administrative “You want to f--- with me, b----!”. J.A. at 34. Later that day, segregation. Scott submitted a grievance against Bair, reciting facts consistent with his later allegations in the complaint. The On August 16, 1995, Scott filed suit pro se against a host of following day, on July 7, Bair filed a Major Misconduct defendants on various claims, including a claim against Bair Charge against Scott for insolence. A Major Misconduct for retaliation against Scott’s exercise of First Amendment Charge can result in a higher security classification, rights. The district court initially dismissed Scott’s placement in administrative segregation, or forfeiture of complaint, on August 31, 1995. In response to a motion by good-time credits. On July 27, a hearing was held on the Scott for rehearing, the district court reinstated Scott’s Misconduct Charge, and the charge was “not sustained,” with Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation the hearing officer indicating that Bair’s credibility was claims but affirmed the dismissal of his Eighth Amendment “questionable,” relying in part on the fact that the Misconduct claim. Scott filed an amended complaint, and on August 19, Charge was filed “24 hours later, after the inmate had claimed 1996, the defendants moved to dismiss or for summary to have been assaulted.” J.A. at 147. judgment, which latter motion was granted on August 28, 1997. This was a grant of summary judgment on the merits, Scott also submitted below an affidavit from a fellow rather than on the basis of qualified immunity. Scott appealed inmate at the facility, Richard F. Thomas (“Thomas”), who to this court, which initially affirmed the grant of summary claims to have overheard a conversation on July 61 between judgment in an unpublished order dated December 9, 1999. See Scott v. Churchill, No. 97-2061, 1999 WL 1206937 (6th Cir. Dec. 9, 1999). Scott filed a motion for rehearing, which 1 was granted in a second unpublished order, on April 6, 2000. There seems to be some confusion in Scott’s materials as to when the events took place, on July 6 or July 7. The dates on each of the prison The order affirmed the dismissal of most of Scott’s claims, forms indicate that the inc ident took place and the Misconduct Charge but, applying the standards of Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 was filed on July 6. A lthough Thom as’s affidavit indicate s that he F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc), reinstated Scott’s overheard this conversation on the morning o f July 7, the conversation retaliation claim against Bair and remanded the case for itself could only have happened on July 6. G iven that Tho mas’s affidavit further proceedings. See Scott v. Churchill [Scott I], No. 97- was filed a year after the inciden t, it is reasonable to assume that this was an insignificant erro r, rather than evid ence of unreliability. 2061, 2000 WL 519148 (6th Cir. April 6, 2000). On remand, No. 03-2427 Scott v. Churchill, et al. 5 6 Scott v. Churchill, et al. No. 03-2427

counsel was appointed for Scott, and Bair filed for summary II. ANALYSIS judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on July 24, 2000. That motion was granted on March 29, 2001, on the A. Standard of Review basis that the clearly established law at the time of the incident would have put a reasonable officer on notice only We review de novo the denial of summary judgment on the that behavior “shocking to the conscience” could support a basis of qualified immunity. Bukowski v. City of Akron, 326 retaliation claim. Scott appealed again to this court; six F.3d 702, 707 (6th Cir. 2003). Such a denial, to the extent it weeks before the case was argued, this court issued Bell v. turns upon issues of law and not of disputed fact, is Johnson, 308 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2002), holding that in 1994, immediately appealable as a final order. Mitchell v. Forsyth, the “shocks the conscience” test was not the clearly 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Weaver v. Shadoan, 340 F.3d 398, established law governing retaliation claims, and that some 406 (6th Cir. 2003). lesser standard governed the qualified immunity determination. The panel deciding Scott’s appeal relied on B. The Elements of a Retaliation Claim Bell in reversing the grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In an unpublished opinion, the panel Under Thaddeus-X, in order to establish a First Amendment stated that retaliation claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that he was (1) engaged in protected conduct; (2) that he suffered an The [Bell] court concluded that as early as 1989, the adverse action; and (3) that a causal connection exists applicable standard for evaluating an adverse action between the protected conduct and the adverse action. 175 undertaken in retaliation for an individual’s exercise of F.3d at 394. In order for the retaliation to be actionable, it his or her First Amendment rights is whether it is capable must be “capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness of deterring a person of ordinary firmness from from exercising his or her right to access the courts.” Id. at exercising [such] rights . . . . 398. At this point in the litigation, it is settled that Scott has In light of Bell, we REVERSE the district court’s made out a case that can survive summary judgment on the decision, and REMAND to the district court for merits; the only remaining question is qualified immunity. reconsideration. An official defendant in a § 1983 suit is entitled to qualified immunity if her conduct “does not violate clearly established Scott v. Churchill [Scott II], No. 01-1625, 2003 WL 77208, statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person *1-*2 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2003) (internal quotation marks would have known.” Bell, 308 F.3d at 601 (internal omitted). Upon remand for reconsideration, the parties quotations omitted). briefed the qualified immunity issue in light of Bell and of the remand, and the district court denied qualified immunity to C. The Effect of the Prior Panel Decision Bair. Bair timely appeals. Scott argues as a preliminary matter that Scott II, containing the statement that under Bell v. Johnson, the clearly established right at the time of the events underlying the instant case was to be free from adverse action which would have deterred a person of ordinary firmness from exercising First Amendment rights, was binding upon the district court No. 03-2427 Scott v. Churchill, et al. 7 8 Scott v. Churchill, et al. No. 03-2427

and is binding upon this court. He cites the doctrine of law of Cir. 1995). “In essence, the mandate rule is a specific the case, in particular the mandate rule, and a line of cases application of the law-of-the-case doctrine.” United States v. holding that where a party fails to seek reconsideration of an Campbell, 168 F.3d 263, 265 (6th Cir. 1999). “The basic opinion containing a misstatement of law or fact, she forfeits tenet of the mandate rule is that a district court is bound to the the right to argue that the opinion was erroneous in scope of the remand issued by the court of appeals.” Id. The subsequent proceedings. scope of a remand is determined by examining the entire order or opinion, to determine whether and how the court of Bell nowhere makes the explicit statement that the appeals intended to limit a remand. Id. at 266-68. In the Thaddeus-X standard is to be used when judging whether instant case, our opinion in Scott I had already determined state officers’ actions violated clearly established law at the that Scott’s retaliation claim against Bair could survive time of the incidents in Bell, and by extension in this case. summary judgment under the Thaddeus-X standard; had the Instead, Bell indicates that the “shocks the conscience” panel of our court meant in Scott II to hold that the Thaddeus- standard is not to be used, relies on two cases, Gibbs v. X standard was the appropriate one to be used in gauging Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 1993), and Newsom v. Norris, qualified immunity, our panel presumably would have 888 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1989), as clearly establishing a remanded with instructions to deny Bair’s motion and prisoner’s right to be free from retaliation for exercising First proceed to trial. Instead, the opinion as a whole makes clear Amendment rights, and holds that the events at issue in Bell that the district court is to reconsider Bair’s motion “[i]n light — a search of a prisoner’s cell and confiscation of his legal of Bell.” Scott II, 2003 WL 77208 at *2. “The issue papers and medical diet snacks — meet the threshold level of presented by Scott [the appellant in Scott II], and resolved in retaliation established in Gibbs and Newsom. Bell, 308 F.3d Bell, is the applicability of the ‘shocks the conscience’ at 608-13. Therefore, Scott II’s statement regarding Bell is standard to prisoner First Amendment retaliation claims not a correct description of Bell’s holding. Scott argues that alleging conduct in 1995.” Id. at *1. Given the discretionary the prior panel’s statement should nonetheless control when nature of the law-of-the-case doctrine, the clear misstatement assessing whether Bair’s actions were objectively of Bell’s holding by Scott II, and the failure of Bair’s unreasonable in the face of clearly established law. Scott I qualified immunity claim under Bell’s actual holding, as held explicitly that Scott could survive summary judgment on detailed below, we decline to consider Scott II’s statement as the merits of his claim under the Thaddeus-X standard; binding upon the district court below or on this court now. therefore, if Scott II’s assertion that the Thaddeus-X standard was the clearly established law of this circuit in 1988 is Finally, Scott cites to cases which take a dim view of a binding as law of the case, Bair’s claim of qualified immunity party’s assertion that a previous panel opinion made a necessarily fails, without further analysis. misstatement of law or fact in a subsequent appeal where no motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Appellate The law-of-the-case doctrine “posits that when a court Procedure 40 was filed. See Campbell v. United States, 592 decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to F.2d 309, 312 (6th Cir. 1979) (a party “may not ignore [Fed. govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same R. App. P. 40]” and attempt to seek reconsideration of a case.” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). ruling through subsequent litigation); United States v. However, the doctrine merely “directs a court’s discretion, it Gargotto, 510 F.2d 409, 412 (6th Cir. 1974) (“In the absence does not limit the tribunal’s power.” Id.; see also Gillig v. of [a petition under Fed. R. App. P. 40], those issues cannot Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 67 F.3d 586, 589-90 (6th be re-considered”). These cases add little to Scott’s initial No. 03-2427 Scott v. Churchill, et al. 9 10 Scott v. Churchill, et al. No. 03-2427

law-of-the-case argument: Bair could have reasonably unconstitutional action was ultimately unsuccessful does not believed that the case was being remanded for briefing to the make Bair’s action any less unconstitutional. Circumstances district court on the issue of qualified immunity in light of outside Bair’s control stopped his attempt at retaliation from Bell, and not in light of the less than accurate statement of being perfected, but had Bair performed the exact same action Bell’s holding in Scott II. and the hearing officer not cleared Scott of misconduct charges, Scott would have faced disciplinary segregation or D. Qualified Immunity Under Bell the loss of good-time credits — which would necessarily be an actionable harm after Gibbs, where plaintiff made out a The district court in the instant case, after this court’s first claim after having been kept in administrative segregation. remand in Scott I, held that the clearly established law at the Qualified immunity should be judged based on the actions of time of the incident was the “shocks the conscience” standard. the officer and the reasonably foreseeable consequences of On appeal, Scott II noted that Bell had effectively overruled those actions, not subsequent events outside of the officer’s that legal conclusion, and remanded for consideration in light control. The injury actually suffered goes to the merits of the of Bell. Bell relied on two cases in concluding that behavior claim, the sufficiency of which to survive summary judgment short of that which “shocks the conscience” was clearly is a settled question in this case. established as unlawful in 1994, the time of the incidents in Bell: Gibbs, 10 F.3d at 378-80, and Newsom, 888 F.2d at Particularly destructive to Bair’s claim that the type of 374-77. In attempting to distinguish his case from Gibbs and adverse action he took against Scott is determinative is Cale Newsom, Bair first argues that Gibbs and Newsom provide no v. Johnson, 861 F.2d 943, 948-51 (6th Cir. 1988). Cale, clear standard, and thus qualified immunity must be granted which the Bell defendants relied upon, and which the Bell — an argument clearly foreclosed by Bell. Bair then argues court took pains to distinguish, held that an officer’s that neither case is factually similar to his, focusing on the unsuccessful attempt to frame a prisoner through the filing of type of adverse action taken — the filing of a false a false misconduct charge in retaliation for complaining about misconduct charge against the prisoner — rather than the prison food was itself action “shocking to the conscience.” protected conduct at issue. In Gibbs, plaintiff prisoner alleged Although Bair acknowledges that Cale is “remotely on that he was kept in administrative segregation as retaliation point,” he argues that it is “easily distinguishable” because in for his activities as a jailhouse lawyer, 10 F.3d at 378-80; in Cale, false evidence was planted on the prisoner, and in Cale, Newsom, plaintiff prisoners alleged that they had not been the prisoner was taken to administrative segregation pending reappointed to their positions as inmate advisors in retaliation his hearing. Appellant’s Br. at 19. Bair’s attempt to for complaints they had made about the Chairman of the distinguish Cale factually is unconvincing — after Hope v. Disciplinary Board, 888 F.2d at 374-77. In attempting to Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002), the distinction between distinguish the situation at bar from Gibbs and Newsom, Bair attempting to frame an inmate for a misconduct charge by argues that Scott suffered no tangible harm. But this planting evidence on his person and attempting to frame an argument is misguided: Bair could not know at the time he inmate by giving false testimony is one without a difference. committed the unconstitutional action, filing a misconduct (“[O]fficials can still be on notice that their conduct violates charge, that Scott would be exonerated of that charge. That established law even in novel factual circumstances.”) Id. As Scott may have suffered less harm than other plaintiffs may to Cale’s detention in administrative segregation, once again, be relevant in determining whether or not he has a claim on Bair’s argument goes to the harm Scott suffered, and thus to the merits of a constitutional violation, but that Bair’s the ultimate determination of the merits of his claim, and not No. 03-2427 Scott v. Churchill, et al. 11 12 Scott v. Churchill, et al. No. 03-2427

to whether Bair’s actions were unconstitutional in light of provides independent verification, that Bair deliberately clearly established law. In Cale itself, our focus was not on framed Scott through false testimony, and that Bair did so the brief detention in administrative segregation which Cale with the specific intent of deterring Scott from asserting his suffered, but instead upon the “danger of further loss of First Amendment rights of grievance. liberty through disciplinary detention and through the loss of good-time credit as a result of the charges filed against him.” Under Gibbs and Newsom, which Bell directs this court to 861 F.2d at 949-50; see also id. at 950-51 (in summation, look to, and under Cale as well, Scott’s right to be free from noting only that Cale “was subject to the possibility of retaliation, in the form of the issuance of a false major disciplinary sanctions and a resulting loss of liberty as a misconduct ticket, against the exercise of his First consequence of the alleged actions,” and not adverting to Amendment rights was clearly established, and Bair is not administrative segregation). Cale, decided in 1988, clearly entitled to qualified immunity. establishes that the mere potential threat of disciplinary sanctions is sufficiently adverse action to support a claim of E. Other Issues Raised By the Parties retaliation. Even had the false misconduct charge been sustained against Cale, however, that case would still clearly Bair argues on the last full page of his brief that is he is establish that the false issuance of a misconduct charge is additionally entitled to qualified immunity on his conspiracy unconstitutional retaliation; that Bair did not do a particularly claim, which he also seems to argue was dismissed by the good job of framing Scott does not make his actions any less district court in an earlier stage of the litigation and never culpable, and events outside of his control (i.e., the hearing reinstated by the circuit court. See Scott II, 2003 WL 77208, officer’s ultimate determination) do not vitiate the “the danger at *1-*2 (noting civil conspiracy claim dismissed on basis of further loss of liberty” to which Bair subjected Scott. See other than qualified immunity but reversing district court’s id. at 949. decision without limitation); Scott v. Bair, No. 1:95 cv 571, slip op. at 10-11 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2001), J.A. at 179, Despite Cale’s clear applicability, Bair claims that Brown 188-89 (dismissing plaintiff’s conspiracy claim on grounds v. Crowley, 312 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2002), was the first case other than qualified immunity). However, in denying that would have given warning that his behavior was qualified immunity, the magistrate judge’s report and unconstitutional, and Bair notes the vigorous dissent in that recommendation indicated that the conspiracy claims would case, arguing that as judges disagree on whether certain proceed to trial. J.A. at 362. This report was adopted by the behavior was unconstitutional, he cannot be expected to know district court without comment on the conspiracy claim. Scott that such behavior was unlawful. The fatal flaw in this v. Churchill, No. 1:95 cv 571, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Mich. Oct. argument, however, is that the Brown case did not contain any 3, 2003), J.A. at 466-67. Since Bair is not entitled to of the specific evidence of retaliatory motive and deliberately qualified immunity on Scott’s First Amendment claim, it falsified charges that Scott presents in the instant case, a fact stands to reason he is not entitled to qualified immunity on noted even by the Brown dissent in distinguishing Cale. See Scott’s conspiracy claim. As to whether the district court Brown, 312 F.3d at 799 (Rosen, J., dissenting) (distinguishing properly considered Scott’s conspiracy claim to be reinstated, Cale from Brown because Cale “feature[d] direct evidence of that issue is controlled by the mandate rule described above: retaliatory conduct” and of the prison official’s “active[] given that the Scott II court reversed the entire decision and abuse[ of] his position of authority” by manufacturing remanded to the district court for reconsideration, the district evidence). Here, of course, Scott asserts, and Thomas court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering Scott’s No. 03-2427 Scott v. Churchill, et al. 13

conspiracy claim. If the initial reasons for dismissing the conspiracy claim are not mitigated by the allowance of the First Amendment claim, Bair is free to again move for summary judgment on the merits of the conspiracy claim. Finally, Scott claims that Bair’s appeal is frivolous and vexatious, and he requests damages and costs because this appeal presents the same issue as Scott II with no change in the law or facts. This is, on its face, a difficult contention to support. While Bell had been decided before Scott II was argued, the Scott II court clearly wished to have the benefit of the district court’s consideration of qualified immunity in light of Bell before a definitive circuit court pronouncement on the issue. The district court having considered qualified immunity, Bair now appeals alleging legal error in that consideration. While the legal issue may be the same in the broader sense — qualified immunity — the district court’s decision clearly breaks new ground from Scott II, and Bair is entitled to appeal from that decision, especially in light of the policy considerations underlying qualified immunity. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.