Thomas Wisniewski v. Fisher, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8577

Plaintiff Thomas Wisniewski, an inmate and Inmate Legal Reference Aide at SCI‑Smithfield, filed a § 1983 amended complaint alleging First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, principally retaliation for helping an assigned inmate prepare a grievance.
While assisting an assigned inmate, Wisniewski possessed a draft grievance and a questionnaire linked to a "notoriously litigious" inmate; prison officials charged him with several misconduct offenses, later dismissed, after he spent ~90 days in restrictive housing.
He alleges subsequent retaliatory acts: removal from his law‑library aide position, interference with legal materials and photocopier access, tampering with property, denial of yard time, and delayed release from disciplinary confinement.
Defendants moved to dismiss; the District Court dismissed claims older than two years as time‑barred and dismissed the two remaining retaliation claims (photocopier and job removal) for failure to state a claim, reasoning that providing legal assistance to other inmates is not protected and photocopier limits were not adverse.
The Third Circuit reviews de novo and considered whether Wisniewski plausibly alleged (1) protected conduct, (2) adverse action, and (3) causation, and whether the statute of limitations dismissal was proper given tolling for PLRA exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether assisting an assigned inmate with a grievance is First Amendment protected conduct	Wisniewski: assistance was part of his job duties and consistent with prison regulations, thus protected	Defendants: prisoner‑to‑prisoner legal assistance has no independent First Amendment protection under Shaw	Court: helping an assigned inmate as part of official duties plausibly falls within limited inmate First Amendment rights and survives 12(b)(6) at this stage
Whether removal from the Inmate Legal Reference Aide job is an adverse action supporting retaliation	Wisniewski: termination of the job assignment deterred protected activity and was retaliatory	Defendants: a prisoner has no right to a job; removal isn’t protected retaliation	Court: job removal is a sufficient adverse action at pleading stage and plausibly linked to retaliatory motive
Whether limitations barred older claims (statute of limitations and tolling for PLRA exhaustion)	Wisniewski: many retaliatory acts occurred within 2 years or were subject to tolling while exhausting administrative remedies	Defendants: acts before October 2011 are time‑barred	Court: dismissal on statute of limitations grounds was premature because the complaint did not on its face foreclose tolling for PLRA exhaustion; remand to evaluate tolling and exhaustion

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausible claim required to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading framework)
Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (elements of prisoner retaliation claim)
Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001) (prisoner‑to‑prisoner legal assistance not entitled to special First Amendment protection beyond ordinary speech)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
Newman v. Beard, 617 F.3d 775 (3d Cir. 2010) (inmates retain First Amendment rights not inconsistent with incarceration)
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969) (protecting inmate access to courts from active interference)
Pearson v. Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 775 F.3d 598 (3d Cir. 2015) (statute of limitations tolled during exhaustion of PLRA administrative remedies)
Cowell v. Palmer Twp., 263 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2001) (continuing violations doctrine and accrual when plaintiff should recognize injury)
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1991) (termination or reassignment of prison job can be adverse action in retaliation context)