Opinion ID: 816408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Kelly and Levine

Text: We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424, 429 (2d Cir. 2012). “[T]he submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). On the other hand, “because prisoner retaliation claims are easily fabricated, and accordingly pose a substantial risk of unwarranted judicial intrusion into matters of general prison administration, we are careful to require non-conclusory allegations.” Bennett v. Goord, 343 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). The District Court dismissed Smith’s amended complaint against Kelly and Levine because the complaint gave “no indication” that either had any personal involvement in the alleged retaliatory transfer. To prevail in a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was personally involved—that is, he directly participated—in the alleged constitutional deprivations.” Gronowski v. Spencer, 424 F.3d 285, 293 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233, 249 (2d Cir. 2010). Although Smith’s amended complaint may not contain the specificity desired in all contexts, given the “special solicitude” accorded to pro se complaints, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 475, we hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the amended complaint against Kelly and Levine. In particular, Smith alleges that it was Kelly who instructed the guards to place him on the 72 hour investigation, one day prior to his transfer. Joint App’x 39. The obvious inference to be drawn from the sequence of Smith’s allegations is that the investigation was a precursor to his transfer and that, inasmuch as Kelly ordered the investigation, he had a direct role in the transfer. As for Levine, Smith alleges that he was the guard who actually removed him from his cell and put him on his way to Auburn. Smith further alleges that Levine told the guards at Auburn that the transfer was executed as punishment for his written complaints to NYSIG, and that, as a direct result, the guards at Auburn placed him in the SHU. Id. at 39-41. We find that these allegations are sufficient to “suggest” Kelly and Levine’s direct involvement in the alleged retaliation. Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474. We note, however, that the language in the amended complaint barely makes out sufficient accusations regarding Levine, and we doubt that the sparse descriptions of his participation will result, on further discovery, in a viable claim. Nonetheless, we hold that it was error to dismiss Kelly and Levine from the lawsuit. 4