SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY
Federal Case Summary
Alexander v. Myers
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
No. 24-1239
Decided: August 3, 2026
In an unreported opinion, the Third Circuit reiterated the elements required to be pled in a First Amendment claim, including a “less-than-significant-but-more-than-de minimis physical injury,” for compensatory damages.
Background
John Alexander (Alexander) was serving a sentence at SCI-Camp Hill when he was assaulted by an officer. He filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding the incident and was transferred to SCI-Smithfield. Upon arrival, corrections lieutenant Myers (Myers) noted Alexander’s extensive grievances and litigation, and informed him that such behavior would not be tolerated at SCI-Smithfield.
Shortly thereafter, Alexander filed grievances regarding his legal documents alleging that there was a conspiracy to hinder his litigation, his mail was being subjected to increased scrutiny, and documents were disappearing. Alexander was warned of the negative consequences but persisted, leading Alexander to be placed in the restricted housing unit (RHU). When in the RHU, Alexander and others requested medical treatment for a beaten prisoner and they were pepper sprayed as a result. Alexander filed additional grievances regarding the pepper spray incident.
Myers then issued a misconduct report alleging Alexander was conspiring to smuggle drugs into the prison. Alexander was removed from his cell for two hour for a search, and when he returned, his legal papers were missing. Two corrections officers told Alexander “that is what complaining gets you.” Alexander filed a grievance regarding the cell search, and a few days later the misconduct charges were dismissed. Myers then renewed the misconduct report again charging Alexander with drug possession. Myers and others arranged the new hearing to be in front of hearing officer Ellenberger who found Alexander guilty without looking at the evidence.
Alexander then filed this lawsuit after exhausting his administrative remedies alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim, and his complaint was dismissed by the court. Alexander timely appealed.
Holding
To maintain a First Amendment retaliation claim, a prisoner must plead that (1) they engaged in conduct that is constitutionally protected; (2) that the prison officials subjected them to adverse action; and (3) that the constitutionally protected conduct was substantial or motivating factor in the decision to discipline them. Additionally, the PLRA bars recovery for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody unless there is a showing of physical injury, specifically a “less-than-significant-but-more-than-de minimis physical injury.”
In Alexander’s case, (1) Alexander’s lawsuit and grievances were constitutionally protected activity; (2) looking at the retaliation from corrections officers, interdicting his mail which led to the dismissal of his lawsuit, arranging a mock grievance hearing with a predetermined outcome to punish him, exposing him to pepper spray, and the destruction and multi-hour search of his cell pleads more than de minimis adverse action; and (3) Alexander’s complaint adequately pleads that his constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to discipline him by pleading the existence of “unusually suggestive” timing as well as “pattern of antagonism.”
Additionally, Alexander did allege a physical injury. He was exposed to pepper spray on three occasions in the RHU and requested medical treatment. The district court’s dismissal was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Questions about this case can be directed to Zoe Wilson at (717) 255 7231 or zwilson@tthlaw.com.