Opinion ID: 2785909
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Officers had confined him to an

Text: unsanitary cell and had provided him unsanitary food service, in violation ‐30‐ Following discovery, the defendants filed a comprehensive dispositive motion. The defendants maintained that many of Mr. Goguen’s allegations -- that officers had denied him use of his legal materials during his meeting with his attorney, had limited his access to the library cart, and had served him food in an unsanitary manner, for example -- failed to state a claim for relief. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits with respect to Mr. Goguen’s claim that he had suffered retaliation. According to the defendants, it was “difficult to discern . . . which actions the Plaintiff allege[d] were retaliation”; but, with respect to the situations he had mentioned specifically, there was no evidence of a causal link between his grievances and the alleged retaliation.34 The defendants also argued that they were entitled to summary judgment with respect to Mr. Goguen’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim and with respect to his Eighth Amendment claim. Turning to the Due Process claim, the of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and