Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): [a] grievance ... opened him up to assault from his fellow inmates”); Carl v. Griffin, No. 08 Civ. 4981, 2011 WL 723553, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2011) (“Defendants’ alleged ‘threats’ and/or ‘harassment’ of Plaintiff were also insufficiently direct or specific to deter an ordinary inmate from exercising his first amendment rights.”); Mateo, 682 F.Supp.2d at 434 (dismissing retaliation claim based on threats that plaintiff “should ‘wait till he put his hands on me,’ and that ‘one day he and I will party’ ”) (internal citation omitted). In fact, this Court has granted summary judgment with respect to a retaliation claim based on a threat nearly identical to Titka’s alleged threat to “get” Barrington. See Bartley v. Collins, 2006 WL 1289256, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006) (Holwell, J.) (<HOLDING>). Accord Bilal v. New York State Dept. of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute (B) holding that verbal threats if they are specific can constitute adverse action for retaliation purposes (C) holding that verbal threats such as we going to get you you better drop the suit do not rise to the level of adverse action (D) holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous (E) holding that the district courts question do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the government may have the right to appeal any sentence that i impose did not comply with rule llbln and failed to properly notify the defendant about the waiver of his appellate rights
Output (English): holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute