Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Nevada prison officials in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment retaliation action. The court held that retaliation for a prisoner’s complaints about another prisoner was not clearly established as unlawful protected conduct under the First Amendment. The court remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from Bird's First Amendment retaliation claim.
- Whether Bird's request for a cell transfer based on concerns about another prisoner constituted protected conduct under clearly established First Amendment law.
Holdings
- The request did not constitute protected conduct under clearly established law because neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit had held that retaliation for a prisoner's complaints about another prisoner violated the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.
- The defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court erred by denying qualified immunity on summary judgment.
Key quotations
“Thus, because neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has ever held that retaliation for complaints against other prisoners violates the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances, it is not clearly established law.” (131 F.4th at 788)
“We conclude that such a challenge fails to allege a violation of clearly established law and reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.” (131 F.4th at 787)
Factual background
Keith Paul Bird, a Nevada state prisoner, requested a cell transfer because he feared that tensions with his cellmate would lead to a fight. Officers allegedly threatened Bird, prevented the move from proceeding as initially expected, confiscated property including religious books and legal papers, and failed to provide an unauthorized-property form. Bird alleged that these actions were retaliation for requesting a cell move and reporting a safety concern.
Procedural history
Bird, a Nevada state prisoner, sued prison officials alleging retaliation after he requested a cell transfer because of concerns about his cellmate and after officers confiscated his property. The district court determined that only the retaliation claim survived screening and was properly exhausted, then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment for defendants on the retaliation claim.
Remand instructions
Remand with instructions to grant summary judgment on Bird's retaliation claim.