Fourth Circuit: Error in Granting Judgment Prior to Adjudging Spoliation Motion
by David Reutter
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment while a dispositive spoliation of evidence motion was pending. The spoliation motion sought sanctions for the failure to produce video of the incident at issue.
While imprisoned in July 2017 at Sussex 1 State Prison, Virginia prisoner Emmanuel King Shaw was accused of indecent exposure. Shaw was a “self-admitted gunner,” a term applied to prisoners who expose themselves and perform indecent acts to female guards. As to the July 2017 incident, Shaw continuously maintained his innocence and requested prison officials view video evidence, which he asserted would show he was sitting in a stairwell at the time rather than in the bathroom committing the indecent act. His requests were denied. Shaw requested the Offender Discipline Unit to preserve the unreviewed video.
Shaw was found guilty. The guilty finding resulted in a rise of Shaw’s security classification level from level 4 to level 5. Sussex 1 had a policy of transferring gunners to other prisons, and Shaw was transferred to Red Onion State Prison, a maximum-security prison that housed only level 5 prisoners.
In October 2018, Shaw filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action that alleged procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation claims. Before the video evidence was produced, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the due process claim and granted defendants summary judgment on the retaliation claim. Shaw appealed.
The Fourth Circuit reversed. The Court found the video evidence was integral to the claims and the action should not have been adjudicated adversely to Shaw until the video was produced on discovery. See: Shaw v. Foreman, 59 F.4th 121 (4th Cir. 2023).
Discovery proceeded upon remand. It came to light that the video was not preserved. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(e)(1), Shaw moved for spoliation sanctions. After the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on January 19, 2024, the parties were advised to brief the court. Without waiting for the Magistrate Judge’s determination of the sanctions motion, the district court ruled on September 20, 2024, granting the defendants summary judgment on both claims. Shaw appealed.
The Fourth Circuit rejected the defendants’ argument that the video was inconsequential to either of Shaw’s claims. The Court reaffirmed its prior holding that the footage “would likely bear profound consequences on the claims in dispute.” If the video showed Shaw was in another area at the time of the alleged indecent exposure incident, he could not have been found guilty, nor would he have suffered a classification level increase and transfer to Red Onion.
While most sanctions for spoliation are non-dispositive pretrial rulings, Shaw may meet the criteria for dispositive sanctions. The significance of the video warranted complete consideration of the spoliation motion, the Court concluded. Therefore, district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to the resolution of that motion. See: Shaw v. Foreman, 177 F.4th 551 (4th Cir. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Shaw v. Foreman
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 177 F.4th 551 (4th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |