Case Name: Julio Isley SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary GREENE, Superintendent, et al., Defendants-Appellees, James Levine, Prison Guard, et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-28
Citations: 531 F. App'x 5
Docket Number: No. 11-1445-pr
Parties: Julio Isley SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary GREENE, Superintendent, et al., Defendants-Appellees, James Levine, Prison Guard, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Present: ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 531
Pages: 5–5

Head Matter:
Julio Isley SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary GREENE, Superintendent, et al., Defendants-Appellees, James Levine, Prison Guard, et al., Defendants.
No. 11-1445-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 28, 2011.
Alexandra A.E. Shapiro, Esq., James Darrow, Esq., Marc E. Isserles, Esq., Shapiro, Arato & Isserles LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Martin Atwood Hotvet, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, Eric T. Schneiderman, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Present: ROGER J. MINER, ROBERT A. KATZMANN and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Appellant, pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in part, and the appeal is DISMISSED with respect to Appellant's claims against defendants Gary Greene, Michael Molisani, Collen Russell, and two John Doe defendants. It is further ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and counsel shall be appointed from this Court's pro bono panel with respect to the dismissal of Appellant's claims against defendants C.F. Kelly and James Levine. Appointed counsel is directed to brief, among other issues, whether the district court erred in determining that: (1) Appellant's amended complaint had failed to sufficiently allege the personal involvement of defendants Kelly and Levine; (2) Appellant had not engaged in constitutionally protected activity; and (3) the law surrounding Appellant's protected activity was not "clearly established" in March 2006.