## Facts

- Ricky Davis, a Michigan state prisoner and an insulin-dependent diabetic, was medically cleared for an off-site prison public-works program.
- Davis alleged he was the only gay participant in the program, though other insulin-dependent diabetic inmates also worked in it.
- Davis alleged public-works staff ridiculed and belittled him because of his sexual orientation and treated him differently than other inmates, including making him “a spectacle” when transporting him back to the facility.
- During a perceived low-blood-sugar episode, an officer declined to hand Davis a honey packet directly and instead had another inmate pass it to him; Davis alleged this was avoidance based on his being gay.
- A nurse later assessed Davis’s blood sugar as normal and treated the incident as a false alarm.
- Despite that assessment, the health unit manager removed Davis from the public-works program for purported health reasons, while non-gay insulin-dependent diabetic inmates allegedly remained in the program.
- Davis pursued an internal grievance and then filed a § 1983 action alleging equal protection and First Amendment retaliation; only the equal protection dismissal was appealed.
- The district court dismissed at PLRA screening for failure to state a claim, reasoning Davis lacked similarly situated comparators and that the claim was barred by Engquist.

## Issues

1. Whether a prisoner plausibly states a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim by alleging removal from a prison work assignment because of sexual orientation while similarly situated non-gay inmates were not removed.
2. Whether a group-based sexual-orientation discrimination claim subject to rational-basis review is automatically a “class-of-one” claim barred by Engquist.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held Davis plausibly alleged differential treatment compared to similarly situated inmates (other insulin-dependent diabetics who were not gay) and alleged the difference was because of sexual orientation.
- The court held Engquist did not bar the claim because rational-basis review does not convert a group-based equal protection claim into a class-of-one theory.

## Legal Principles

- To plead an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege differential treatment from similarly situated persons and facts supporting that the difference was based on an improper or arbitrary classification.
- At the pleading stage, a complaint survives dismissal if it alleges sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief.
- Sexual-orientation discrimination claims may proceed under equal protection even when evaluated under rational-basis scrutiny, so long as the allegations plausibly indicate discriminatory treatment relative to similarly situated comparators.
- Rational-basis review does not, by itself, transform a group-based discrimination claim into a class-of-one claim.
- Engquist limits certain class-of-one claims involving discretionary decisions but does not foreclose traditional, group-based equal protection claims.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Davis’s allegations plausibly supported a group-based equal protection claim that he was removed from a prison work program because he was gay, and it rejected the view that rational-basis review made the claim an Engquist-barred class-of-one theory, requiring the case to proceed past PLRA screening on remand.


Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2012)