Pro se Inmate wins free speech claim against jail

This pro se inmate has won his appeal in the Second Circuit, convincing the Court of Appeals that he has a real First Amendment retaliation claim against his jailers.

The case is Kotler v. Boley, a summary order issued on September 30. Plaintiff says he filed a grievance against corrections officers and, in retaliation, the officers searched his cell, wrote up a false misbehavior report, threw him in special disciplinary units for three months, and testified falsely at his disciplinary hearing. 

Yes, inmates have free speech rights. In some ways, their free speech rights are more extensive than public employees, who can sue for retaliation only if they speak out as a citizen on workplace issues and their speech touches upon a matter of public concern. Inmates are not bound by these speech restrictions, though there are certainly things they cannot say while behind bars in light of the need for prison discipline. But if the inmate files a grievance on a purely personal matter, that grievance is protected under the First Amendment, and the jail cannot retaliate. The Court notes in this case that it "approach[es] prisoner retaliation claims with skepticism and particular care" since the courts do not want the inmates to claim that any adverse action in the jail is retaliatory. But plaintiff wins this appeal under Rule 12 dismissal standards, and the case will proceed to discovery.

What the district court got wrong in this case was finding that the adverse actions were not enough to dissuade a reasonable inmate from filing future grievances. That's the general standard for these cases, but the district court did not apply the standard correctly. All of these adverse actions, taken as a whole, might make an inmate think twice about filing another grievance, the Court of Appeals (Nathan, Carney and Bianco) says. The district court also held it against plaintiff for not identifying the content of his grievances in his pro se complaint. The Court of Appeals says that it was enough for plaintiff to allege a motivation for the adverse actions: that he was advocating on behalf of other inmates at the jail. Also, plaintiff began to suffer the retaliatory actions only one day after he filed the grievance. That's certainly close enough in time to permit an inference of retaliatory intent.