Opinion ID: 27
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Dismissal of Uphoff's First Amendment Retaliation Claims against All Defendants Save Alejandro and Vazquez Was Proper

Text: The dismissal of Uphoff's claims against all defendants except Alejandro and Vazquez that he suffered retaliatory adverse employment action for exercising his First Amendment right to file suit was proper. (And as for Alejandro and Vazquez, the jury found them not liable.) Plaintiffs may sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they suffered adverse employment action after exercising their First Amendment rights. Powell v. Alexander, 391 F.3d 1, 16-17 (1st Cir.2004); see Rosado-Quiñónes v. Toledo, 528 F.3d 1, 5-7 (1st Cir.2008) (discussing the scope of public employees' right to petition). Plaintiffs must show they engaged in constitutionally protected conduct and that this conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged adverse employment decision. Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927, 936 (1st Cir.2008). Assuming arguendo that Uphoff's filing his 2003 federal court complaint was protected activity, see Rosado-Quinones, 528 F.3d at 5-7, the 2004 amended complaint's factual allegations against the other defendants failed to connect them to his filing of the 2003 complaint.