John Banda, Jr. v. Y. Corniel
682 F. App'x 170
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- John Banda, civilly committed at New Jersey STU, filed a § 1983 suit pro se alleging staff retaliated for grievance filings by placing him on Modified Activities Program (MAP), which reduced privileges and cost him his job.
- Banda submitted multiple grievance forms in 2012 using insulting language toward staff; treatment staff placed and extended him on MAP citing abusive language and disruptive behavior; he was later removed after grievance submissions decreased.
- Banda claimed the STU Resident’s Guide forbids reprisals for filing grievances and argued his language was protected therapeutic expression, not threatening.
- District Court initially allowed retaliation claims to proceed but later dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): it found many defendants lacked personal involvement and held Banda’s MAP placement was not an ‘adverse action’ because Banda continued filing grievances.
- Banda appealed; the Third Circuit reviewed whether MAP placement (and related loss of job) constituted an adverse action for First Amendment retaliation purposes and whether dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAP placement constituted an "adverse action" for First Amendment retaliation | MAP placement and loss of job deprived Banda of significant privileges and therefore was adverse | District Court: Banda was not deterred (continued filing), so MAP was not an adverse action | Reversed in part: loss of job and significant restrictions suffice as an adverse action under the objective "person of ordinary firmness" standard |
| Proper legal standard for deterrence | Plaintiff: his continued filing does not negate adverse-action claim | Defendants: actual deterrence matters; Banda wasn’t deterred so no claim | Court: objective standard controls (would a person of ordinary firmness be deterred); actual plaintiff reaction is not dispositive |
| Sufficiency of pleadings against specific defendants (personal involvement) | Banda argued the named defendants were responsible for MAP placement | Defendants argued lack of personal involvement for many defendants | Third Circuit affirmed dismissal as to defendants lacking adequate personal involvement; vacated dismissal as to Chiapetta, Stokes, Brickhouse, Main, Corniel on adverse-action theory |
| Whether dismissal should have been with prejudice or left to further proceedings | Banda sought reconsideration rather than amendment | Defendants favored dismissal | Court vacated dismissal as to the surviving retaliation claims and remanded for further proceedings; affirmed dismissal in other respects |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2004) (objective standard: ordinary-firmness deterrence)
- Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, 839 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2016) (loss of prison job can be adverse action)
- W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (stand on complaint constitutes final order for appeal)
- United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)