Th e Cle rk of Court is d ir e c te d to ame nd

theof fi c ia l c a pti on in t his c a se to c on fo rm

to 1 the listing of the pa

rties above

. 09- 4262- pr Ko tle r v . D on e lli U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 24 day

of June, two thousand and ten. th
P r e s e nt : G U ID O C A LA B RE S I,

RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, DENNYCHI

N, Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ Ker ry Kotler, Plaintif f-Appellant ,

-v- (09-4262- pr) J ohn Donelli, Su

pe rin te nd e nt, Ba reHi ll Co rre c tio na l F ac ili ty , L . J ubert, Deputy Supe rintendent of S e c ur ity , L inda Turne r, Deputy Supe rintendent of Programs , W. Dann, Corrections Sergeant , Dar win Daily , Corrections Officer , David Charla nd, Corrections Officer , Thomas Eag en, Director, Inm ate Griev ance Programs , Donald Selsky , Di re c tor , S pe c ial Ho us ing /I nm ate Discipline , 1 Defendants-A ppellees

. Appea ringfor Appe llant: Michae l E. Cassidy , Prisoners’ L eg al Service s of New

York, Plattsburgh, NY2

Appea ringfor Appe llees: Ba rbar a D. Unde rwood, Andr ew B . Ayers (Na ncy A. Spieg el, of counsel) for Andre w M. Cuomo, Attorney

Gene ral of the State of New Y ork Appea l from the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of Ne w York (Mordue , C.J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud gme nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t beand it h e reby is VACATED and RE M AN DE D

. Plaintiff-appe llant Kerr

y Kotler (“ Kotler” ) filed a

complaint on Oct. 27, 2006 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleg ing that defe ndants planted a wea pon in his prison cell and then disciplined him for possession of that we apon in re taliation for his participation in an inmate grieva nce program. He alleg ed violations of his First and F ourtee nth Amendment rights for the re taliation, an d v i o l at i o n s o f h i s fi ftham en dm en td u e p ro ce s s ri ght s d

uri n g h i s d i s ci p l i n ary

h eari n g. J u d ge Mordue grante d defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt on Sept. 17, 2009 and Kotler now appea ls. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and specific ation of issues for r eview. We r e vie w o rd e rs gra

nti ngsumma

ry jud gme nt de novo , construingevidenc e in the light most favora

ble to the nonmoving pa

rty

. An de rso n v . R e c ore , 446 F.3d 324, 328 ( 2d Cir. 2006). A grant of summar

y judgme nt should be aff

irmed if ther e ar e no g enuine issues a s to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law . Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . A g enuine issue of material fac t exi sts if the evidenc e is such that “a rea sonable jury

could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmovingparty .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc., 47 7 U .S. 24 2, 24 8 ( 19 86 ). We m us t “re solve all ambiguities and draw all fac tual infere nces in fa vor of the nonmova

nt,” but the nonmovant may

not defe at the motion through relianc e on “c onclusory statements or mer e alleg ations.” Da v is v . Ne w York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 ( 2d Cir. 2002). We review alleg ations espec ially car efully for c onclusory

statements in prison reta liation claims. Be nn e tt v . G oo rd, 343 F.3d 133, 137 ( 2d Cir. 2003). To prove a

First Amendme nt retaliation cla im under Section 1983, a pla intiff must show that th e sp e e c h o r c on du c t w a s p ro te c te d, that th e rewa s a n a dv e rs e a c tio n, and

that th e rewa s a causa l connec tion between the protec ted spee ch and the adver se ac tion. Es pin al v . G oo rd, 558 F.3d 119, 128 ( 2d Cir. 2009). Ther e is no dispute that Kotler’s a ctivities on the grieva nce committee wer e prote cted. See Gayle v . Gonye a, 313 F.3d 677, 682 ( 2d Cir. 2002). Ther e we re also clea rly adver se ac tions – impeac hment from the grieva nce c ommitt ee a

nd disciplinary conseque nces. Theprinciple disputed issue is the ca usal conne ction betwee n Kotler’s protected c on du c t a s a

me mbe r o f t

he Inmate Grie va

nc e Pr ogra

m and thewe a po n p ur po rt e dly fo un d in his cube, which re sulted in disciplinary action. A p la int if f b e ars theini tia l bu

rd e n o f s ho wi ngthat “ thepr ote c te d c on du c t w a s a substantial or motivating fa ctor in the prison off icials’” disc iplinary

decision. Graham v. Hende rson , 8 9 F .3 d 7 5, 79 (2 d Ci r. 19 96 ). Pla int if fs may do so wi th c ir c ums tanti a l e vid e nc e if it3

is “sufficie ntly

compelling ,” Be nn e tt , 343 F.3d at 139, and may show a c ausal c onnection by demonstratingthat the protec ted ac tivity was c lose in time to the adverse action. Espinal , 558 F .3 d at 12 9; Ga

y le , 313 F.3d at 683. Viewingthe evidenc e in the light most favorable to Kotler, as wemust, a rea sonable jury c ou ld r e tur

n a ve rd ic t f or Ko tle r. Ko tle r d isa

vo ws owne rs hip of

thewe a po n, de fe nd ants ’ te sti mony is i nc on sis te nt o n h owand wh e rethepriso n o ff

ic ia ls f ound thewe a po n, and the reis e vid e nc e that at le a st o ne de fe nd ant w ish e d to re mov e Ko tle r f ro m th e gri e va

nc e c omm itt e e . T his combined with the re st of the circ umstantial evidence Kotler a lleg es is sufficie nt to raise a g e nu ineiss ue of

fa c t a s to wh e the r o ne or mor e of thede fe nd ants re ta liate d a g a ins t K otl e r f or his pr ote c te d a c tiv iti e s. On

re mand , th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld, of

c ours e , e va luate thec la ims a g a ins t eac h group of de fenda

nts separately

and may consider whether

summary judgme nt for lac k of persona l involvement is appropriate as to some. Acc ording ly , the judgment of the district cour t here by is VACATED and REMAN DED.

FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk