Dolan v. Connolly
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12677
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Rory Dolan, a pro se inmate, served multiple terms on the Fishkill Correctional Facility Inmate Liaison Committee (ILC) and advocated grievances and assistance for other prisoners.
- After being reelected as ILC chair, correction staff searched and confiscated Dolan’s prison law computer and filed a misbehavior report accusing him of unauthorized password-protected files.
- Dolan was disciplined, sentenced to 90 days in the Special Housing Unit (SHU), and his request for discretionary review was denied; an administrative reversal of the disciplinary finding later occurred but he remained in SHU until the original term expired at a transfer facility.
- Dolan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation), § 1985(3) (conspiracy), and state-law claims; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding his ILC activity was not protected speech and that he failed to plead a § 1985(3) class-based conspiracy.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo, assumed the complaint’s allegations true, and focused on whether ILC activity is constitutionally protected and whether Dolan adequately pleaded a § 1985(3) class-based conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing/voicing grievances as an ILC member is protected First Amendment conduct | Dolan: ILC grievance advocacy is petitioning government and therefore protected speech/conduct | Defendants/District Ct: General ILC status or activity not shown to be protected; no specific grievances pleaded | Court: ILC advocacy (filing/voicing grievances on behalf of prisoners) is protected First/14th Amendment conduct; § 1983 retaliation claim reinstated and remanded |
| Whether complaint pleads causal link between protected conduct and adverse action for retaliation | Dolan: alleged timing and defendants’ involvement in ILC/grievances support causation | Defendants: plaintiff failed to identify specific grievances and causal connection | Court: did not decide sufficiency on causation; remanded for further consideration and allowed leave to amend |
| Whether Dolan alleged a class-based, invidiously discriminatory motive under § 1985(3) | Dolan: ILC members/jailhouse lawyers constitute a protected class | Defendants/District Ct: ILC/jailhouse lawyers are not a protected class under § 1985(3) | Court: Affirmed dismissal of § 1985(3) claim — ILC members/jailhouse lawyers not a protected class for § 1985(3) purposes |
| Whether counsel should be appointed on remand | Dolan: requested counsel to assist repleading and factual development | Defendants: (no point raised on appeal) | Court: Appointed counsel for Dolan in district court under Hodge factors and directed counsel to advise on repleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996) (retaliation for filing grievances implicates First Amendment right to petition)
- Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1988) (obstruction of prisoner’s right to seek redress actionable under § 1983)
- Meriwether v. Coughlin, 879 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1989) (ILC described as elected group to communicate grievances to officials)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (court must approach prisoner retaliation claims with caution)
- Flaherty v. Coughlin, 713 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1983) (retaliation claims require specific detailed factual allegations)