Opinion ID: 799252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cingilli

Text: Cingilli makes no allegation that the defendants have taken any action to prevent him from accessing the TCA website at his will. Instead, he alleges that he fears retaliation, in the form of lowered grades or other detriment to his academic standing, if he uses the website for a research paper. He relies on the proposition that, in the context of a First Amendment claim, actual injury can exist for standing purposes even if the plaintiff has not engaged in the prohibited expression as long as the plaintiff is objectively reasonably chilled from exercising his First Amendment right to free expression in order to avoid enforcement consequences. Id. at 792. His argument fails, however, because the Complaint does not allege that Professor Chaouat has any ability whatsoever to influence Cingilli's academic standing. In his reply brief, Cingilli urges that, despite an absence of control over any of Cingilli's grades, Professor Chaouat might be able to affect his academic standing because professors regularly communicate to one another about work-related issues, such as ... troublesome students. Even treating this generously as an inference one might draw from the Complaint, it is far too speculative to establish an objectively reasonable chilling effect. See Klobuchar, 381 F.3d at 791-92. As we noted in a similar situation, Plaintiffs claim that they have thoroughly described why ... the statute could be easily manipulated, and the possible motives police may have to [do so].... Even so, they fail in the key respect of asserting that peace officers in fact initiate retaliatory prosecution.... Zanders v. Swanson, 573 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir.2009) (finding no standing for plaintiffs' First Amendment claims). Likewise, in the instant case, there are no factual allegations that Professor Chaouat or other professors at the University of Minnesota in fact reach out to lower the grades of troublesome students in classes taught by others. In the same fashion, while President Bruininks conceivably could intervene to lower Cingilli's grades or deny him other academic benefits, there is no allegation that he in fact engages in such practices. As a result, Cingilli has not nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Because Cingilli fails to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate an objectively reasonable chilling effect, he has not established standing to pursue a First Amendment claim under these circumstances.