222893P.pdf   04/04/2024  Sease Beard  v.  Doris Falkenrath
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-2893
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Stras, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff, an inmate at an all-male prison who 
   has gender dysphoria and identifies as a transgender woman, sued prison 
   officials asserting various federal civil rights claims. The claims arose 
   out of an incident during which plaintiff was allegedly forcibly stripped 
   of all clothing except underwear by male guards, pepper sprayed, placed in 
   restraints, exposed to other inmates while largely unclothed, and then 
   placed on suicide watch. Plaintiff also asserted violations of a right to 
   wear gender-identity-conforming clothing and to have others use preferred 
   pronouns and claimed that various defendants retaliated against plaintiff 
   after this lawsuit was filed. The district court denied defendants' motion 
   to dismiss plaintiff's operative complaint based on qualified immunity, 
   and defendants appeal. Held: The district court did not err in denying 
   defendants qualified immunity on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment unlawful 
   search claim as the search plausibly crossed the line into 
   unreasonableness; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on 
   plaintiff's equal protection and First Amendment expressive-conduct 
   claims, as it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that 
   they would violate plaintiff's constitutional rights by engaging in the 
   gender-identity discrimination alleged; plaintiff's complaint was 
   insufficient to state deliberate-indifference or First Amendment 
   retaliation claims against two defendants; and the district court did not 
   err in denying qualified immunity on the remaining retaliation claims, as 
   the complaint allegations were sufficient to support an inference of 
   retaliatory motive and but-for causation between the filing of this 
   lawsuit and the subsequent denial of plaintiff's request to be promoted 
   out of administrative segregation, new restrictions on plaintiff's access 
   to showers, and the confiscation of plaintiff's personal property, 
   including legal materials. The denial of the motion to dismiss is affirmed 
   as to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against the guards involved in 
   the search, affirmed in part as to the retaliation claims, and otherwise 
   reversed. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.