Case Explained: BENJAMIN FORREST CARTER v. BETH CABELL, in her individual and official capacity; KEVIN MCCOY, in his individual and official capacity; JOSHUA BRANCH, in his individual and official capacity; JOHN DOES; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA and HAROLD W. CLARKE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-04 The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not bar the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims because he properly exhausted administrative remedies before raising those specific claims in his amended complaint, even though his original complaint was filed prior to exhaustion. Regarding his Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims, which were unexhausted when initially filed, the court remanded for the district court to determine in the first instance whether the Virginia Department of Corrections grievance process was genuinely “available” to the plaintiff under *Ross v. Blake*. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred in dismissing the Eighth Amendment supervisory liability claim against VDOC Director Harold Clarke and the First Amendment retaliation claims against Wardens Beth Cabell and Kevin McCoy, ruling that the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state plausible claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.