Parkhurst v. Shannon, et al.
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed in Part
A Tenth Circuit panel addressed two prisoner-retaliation theories and the denial of appointed counsel. It affirmed the district court’s refusal to appoint counsel and upheld summary judgment on the claim that a verbal threat to fire the inmate from his kitchen job constituted retaliation, holding the inmate offered no specific evidence about the job’s value. But it reversed summary judgment on the claim that the subsequent disciplinary charge was retaliatory, finding triable evidence of suspicious timing and departure from past practice, and remanded for further proceedings.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether an inmate alleging First-Amendment retaliation based on the threatened loss (or loss) of a prison job must plead or prove specific facts about the job’s nature and value to show an adverse action that would chill a person of ordinary firmness.
Circuit Positions
Threatened loss or termination of a prison job is not automatically an adverse action; the inmate must offer specific facts showing the job’s concrete value or other tangible detriment.
Termination of prison employment, standing alone, constitutes an adverse action adequate to support a retaliation claim, without need for detailed allegations about the job.
Conflict Summary
The Seventh and Tenth Circuits require inmates to provide concrete, job-specific evidence (such as pay, desirability, or side benefits) to show that a threat to terminate or the termination of a prison job would deter protected speech. The Third Circuit, by contrast, treats the termination of prison employment itself as an inherently sufficient adverse action at the pleading stage, without demanding additional particulars about the job.