Roseboro v. Gillespie, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55053

Background

Roseboro, an inmate at MCC from Aug 2008 to Dec 2009, alleged retaliation by Officers Gillespie and Wingate and Officer Serena Wingate for filing grievances; he asserted additional due process and Eighth Amendment claims; the defendants moved for summary judgment on exhaustion, merits, and immunity defenses; the court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.
Roseboro alleged Gillespie tampered with his mail and that Wingate and Serena Wingate retaliated by filtering grievances, delaying visitor requests, issuing false incident reports, and punitive disciplinary actions resulting in SHU confinement and loss of privileges.
The contested actions included a February 12, 2009 mail/interaction incident with Gillespie; a March 10, 2009 incident report by Wingate and a June 1, 2009 inmate count leading to disciplinary sanctions; a June 4, 2009 UDC hearing; and subsequent SHU placement and grievances.
Roseboro claimed his rights were retaliated against for grievances against Gillespie and Wingate, including false reporting, denial of visits, and punitive disciplinary measures; the court evaluated these claims under Bivens and First Amendment retaliation standards.
The court applied Sandin v. Conner to due process claims arising from SHU confinement and held the confinement was not atypical or significant enough to create a liberty interest; the court found no personal involvement by the named defendants in several asserted due process violations; the court also held that the alleged destruction of property and mail tampering were not sufficiently causally linked to the protected activity to constitute retaliation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Roseboro states a First Amendment retaliation claim.	Roseboro contends grievances caused adverse acts by Gillespie and Wingate.	Defendants argue causation is not shown and acts predate protected activity in some claims; speculative allegations fail.	Granted in part; causation not established; some claims rejected on temporal preclusion.
Whether Gillespie’s actions constitute retaliation for protected speech.	Gillespie’s conduct following Roseboro’s grievances shows retaliation.	First grievance timing and lack of direct evidence negate causation.	Gillespie claims dismissed; retaliation not established.
Whether Counselor Wingate’s actions constitute retaliation for protected activity.	Wingate’s handling of visitor requests and a March 10, 2009 incident report were retaliatory.	No evidence of knowledge of Roseboro’s grievances or causal link; actions justified or unproven.	Summary judgment for Wingate granted; no causal link proven.
Whether Officer Wingate retaliated through the June 1, 2009 count and related actions.	Wingate issued reports and harassed Roseboro after grievances.	Actions were supported by policy and Roseboro admitted misconduct; no adverse action proven.	No liability; no adverse action shown.
Whether Roseboro’s due process and Eighth Amendment claims survive.	SHU confinement and hearing rights violated Wolff/Sandin standards; property loss; transfer to a low-security facility.	No atypical hardship; no personal involvement; alleged rights not violated under applicable precedents.	All due process and cruel and unusual punishment claims dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (liberty interests limited to atypical and significant hardship)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process in prison disciplinary hearings; basic rights to notice and opportunity to present evidence)
Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (protected activity includes filing prison grievances; need for causal link)
Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996) (retaliation requires adverse action likely to chill exercise of rights)
Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1999) (hearing adequacy and admissibility matters in disciplinary proceedings)