Gattineri v. Town of Lynnfield, Massachusetts, 58 F.4th 512

Appellants Anthony Gattineri and Boston Clearwater Co. (BCW) own the Pocahontas Spring in Lynnfield, MA and sought to operate a spring-water business and preserve the spring for Native American use.
The Spring lies in protected wetlands; Lynnfield enforced state and local wetlands and land-use regulation against work at the site.
Appellants sued the Town and multiple town agencies and employees, alleging a conspiracy to drive them out (false complaints by neighbors, regulatory enforcement used as intimidation) and violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, plus state-law claims.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state viable federal claims; Appellants appealed.
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed: Appellants failed to adequately brief or connect factual allegations to First Amendment retaliation elements; their “right to earn a living” theory under the Privileges/Immunities Clause failed as a matter of law; the §1985 and §1986 claims depend on viable §1983 allegations and were dismissed; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation — plausibility and causation	Complaint alleges multiple adverse acts motivated by retaliation for Gattineri's protected speech/association	Town defended dismissal (did not meaningfully brief retaliation in district court or on appeal)	Dismissal affirmed: Appellants waived/failed to develop briefing and did not plausibly plead retaliation or but‑for retaliatory motive
Right to earn a living protected by Privileges or Immunities	"Right to earn a living" is a constitutionally protected privilege (Privileges and Immunities)	The right to make a living is not a fundamental constitutional right; Privileges/Immunities does not create a naked right to conduct business	Rejected: Medeiros controls; Article IV vs Fourteenth Clause distinction; no authority recognizing a Fourteenth Privileges/Immunities fundamental right to earn a living
§1985 conspiracy to deprive civil rights	Town conspired with neighbors and officials to deprive civil rights	No viable underlying §1983 claim exists	Dismissed: §1985 claim fails because the alleged underlying §1983 rights were not adequately alleged
§1986 failure to prevent; state-law claims; supplemental jurisdiction	Failure to prevent conspiracy alleged; state claims raised	§1986 depends on §1985; no federal claims support jurisdiction	Dismissed §1986; federal claims gone so court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims

Falmouth Sch. Dep't v. Doe, 44 F.4th 23 (1st Cir. 2022) (articulates First Amendment retaliation elements)
Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019) (but‑for causation requirement for retaliatory arrests/actions)
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (but‑for causation standard in retaliatory-prosecution cases)
Medeiros v. Vincent, 431 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2005) (the right to make a living is not a fundamental right for due process/equal protection)
Piper v. Supreme Ct. of New Hampshire, 723 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1983) (Article IV privileges and immunities context; distinguished here)
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Loc. 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983) (§1985 claims must rest on rights found elsewhere)
Rodriguez v. Mun. of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2011) (issues can be deemed waived by inadequate briefing)