Law360 (June 4, 2026, 7:34 PM EDT) -- An inmate whose prison disciplinary conviction for indecent exposure led to his transfer to a maximum security facility should not have lost his case without having his sanctions request over destroyed video evidence reviewed, a Fourth Circuit panel said Thursday, vacating and remanding a lower court's decision.

According to the unanimous published opinion, the lower court abused its discretion in three ways: by arbitrarily granting summary judgment without addressing Emmanuel King Shaw's spoliation motion, by failing to consider the governing factors for sanctions over destroyed evidence, and by effectively relying on the mistaken premise that the missing video did not matter, even though it was central to the case.

Shaw had repeatedly argued that video evidence would show that he was not in the bathroom where the alleged 2017 indecent exposure took place, but prison officials refused to review the video, initially arguing that its quality was too poor to see anything, the panel said.

As a result of the alleged incident, Shaw was transferred to a maximum security facility, but wrote to the Offender Discipline Unit asking it "to preserve the unreviewed and allegedly exculpatory video footage," the panel said.

Shaw then sued prison officials in October 2018, alleging they violated his procedural due process rights and participated in First Amendment retaliation, according to the panel. Despite his request, the officials never produced the video.

The district court initially ruled against him, but the Fourth Circuit in 2023 revived both of Shaw's claims, saying at that time that "it defies logic and common sense that summary judgment was appropriate when the video evidence — core to Shaw's theory of vindication for the underlying disciplinary offense — had yet to surface."

On remand, it became clear that the prison officials hadn't preserved the footage despite Shaw's September 2017 request, prompting him to seek spoliation sanctions.

However, the district court again found in favor of prison officials before a magistrate judge ever decided Shaw's sanctions claim, the panel said.

The Virginia federal court ultimately sided with the defendants, finding that Shaw lacked a protected liberty interest since his prison transfer didn't materially change his life.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed, saying Thursday that the indecent exposure conviction was what triggered Shaw's move to a maximum security prison.

The panel said the missing footage was central to Shaw's procedural due process and First Amendment retaliation claims because he had long argued it would exonerate him of an indecent exposure charge. As a result, the panel sent the case back with instructions for the district court to address Shaw's motion for sanctions.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comments Thursday. 

U.S. Circuit Judges Roger Gregory, James Wynn, and Nicole Berner sat on the panel for the Fourth Circuit.

Shaw is represented by Emma Rose Bagwell, Chandler S.K. Creswell and Thomas V. Burch of the University of Georgia School of Law's Appellate Litigation Clinic.

The prison officials are represented by Tillman J. Breckenridge, Jason S. Miyares, Kevin M. Gallagher, Meredith L. Baker and Ethan C. Treacy of the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia.

The case is Shaw v. Foreman, case number 24-7015, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.