PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7185

EMMANUEL KING SHAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

T. S. FOREMAN, Unit Manager; M. MURPHY, Unit Manager; T. LEABOUGH, Hearings Officer; N. LEACH, Counselor; F. L. ADAMS, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01286-CMH-IDD)

Argued: October 27, 2022 Decided: February 3, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Senior Judge Floyd wrote the opinion in which Chief Judge Gregory and Judge Wynn joined.

ARGUED: Daniel Steven Severson, KELLOGG HANSEN TODD FIGEL & FREDERICK PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Lucas W.E. Croslow, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, Charles H. Slemp, III, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Andrew N. Ferguson, Solicitor General, Erika L. Maley, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, M. Jordan Minot, Assistant Solicitor General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 20-7185 Doc: 50 Filed: 02/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 17

FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Emmanuel King Shaw was an inmate at Sussex I State Prison

(SISP) in 2017. A female correctional officer at SISP charged Shaw with a disciplinary

offense, alleging that he directed lewd behavior toward her in the prison showers. Shaw

denied the allegation, contending that security-camera footage would vindicate him.

Subsequent to what Shaw alleged was a defective disciplinary-hearing process, prison

officials found that he committed the offense and transferred him to a maximum-security

facility. Based on the defects that Shaw perceived in the hearing process and subsequent

transfer, he commenced a pro se civil action, levying a procedural due process claim and a

First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants-Appellees T.S. Foreman, M.

Murphy, T. Leabough, N. Leach, and F.L. Adams (collectively, the “Prison Officials”).

The district court dismissed Shaw’s procedural due process claim, then granted summary

judgment—pre-discovery—in favor of the Prison Officials on the remaining First

Amendment retaliation claim. Shaw now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we reverse

and remand.

I.

Shaw is presently serving a more than fifty-year sentence for abduction, robbery,

burglary, and use of a firearm in commission of a felony. In 2017, he was housed in SISP.

On July 19, 2017, a female correctional officer at SISP charged him with a disciplinary

offense for allegedly masturbating in her direction while he showered. He denied the

allegation, arguing that security-camera footage would prove his innocence. The prison

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-7185 Doc: 50 Filed: 02/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 17

scheduled a disciplinary hearing for July 27, 2017 and moved Shaw to administrative

segregation pending the hearing.

The disciplinary hearing was postponed, and Shaw, still in segregation, commenced

a hunger strike to protest the delay. According to Shaw, SISP’s internal policies mandated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document