2, 890 F.3d 77

Mark Burns, a New York prison inmate working in the commissary, was struck by a falling can and reported the injury as work-related; commissary officer corroborated his account.
Prison officials (Shanley, Noeh, Martuscello) told Burns his wife reported he had been "cut" and pressured him to act as an ongoing informant (a "snitch") or to change his account to implicate a guard.
When Burns refused, officials recommended and secured his placement in Involuntary Protective Custody (IPC) on grounds of alleged threat, where he remained ~6+ months with severe restrictions.
Burns sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First Amendment retaliation and Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment violations; district court granted summary judgment to defendants, reasoning Burns’s refusal to snitch was not protected speech.
The Second Circuit (Pooler, J.) held that (1) the First Amendment protects a prisoner’s right not to serve as an informant and to refuse to provide false information, but (2) defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established at the time of Burns’s placement in IPC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether refusal to serve as a prison informant is First Amendment protected speech	Burns: refusal to snitch and ongoing refusal to provide information is protected expressive conduct	Defendants: no protection because security concerns allow compelled cooperation; analogize to obligation to testify or provide evidence	Yes — Court holds refusal to serve as an informant is protected, but novel at the time (see qualified immunity)
Whether refusing to provide false information to officials is protected	Burns: has right to refuse to fabricate statements or retract truthful reports	Defendants: coercion justified by penological needs; government may compel evidence	Yes — Court extends Jackler to prisoners: right to refuse to make false statements is protected
Whether IPC placement constituted adverse action causally connected to protected speech	Burns: IPC was imposed in retaliation for refusal to snitch; guards threatened IPC to coerce him	Defendants: IPC placement was justified by safety concerns and wife’s report	Yes — material facts support adverse action and causation sufficient to survive summary judgment
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Burns: defendants violated constitutional rights and should be liable	Defendants: rights were not clearly established; no prior controlling precedent	Yes — Court finds right not clearly established then; grants qualified immunity and affirms judgment

Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225 (2d Cir.) (First Amendment protects right to refuse to make statements believed false)
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (First Amendment protects decision not to convey state motto; right not to speak)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (compelled affirmation of belief violates First Amendment)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (framework for assessing prisoner First Amendment claims vis-à-vis penological interests)
Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (2d Cir.) (examples of adverse actions in prisoner retaliation claims)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) ("public has right to every man's evidence" discussed and distinguished)