Opinion ID: 1406027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Farid's Retaliation Claim

Text: Farid contends that his First Amendment claim includes a retaliation claim that was not addressed by the District Court. In his pro se complaint, Farid alleged generally that defendants have violated [his] rights under the First Amendment . . . when they applied disciplinary sanctions upon [him] for engaging in conduct that was constitutionally and statutorily protected. Compl. ¶ 101. In Farid II, the District Court appeared initially to treat this language as raising a retaliation claim under the First Amendment. See 2006 WL 59517, at . As previously recounted, the District Court then denied, without prejudice, summary judgment as to Farid's First Amendment claim and invited further briefing. Subsequently, in Farid III, the District Court addressed Farid's First Amendment claim, but the Court did not treat it as a retaliation claim. Instead, the District Court decided the issue exclusively on vagueness grounds. See 514 F.Supp.2d at 488-93. It is unclear from the record whether the District Courtwith the benefit of further briefing to supplement Farid's pro se complaintultimately read that complaint as raising only a First Amendment vagueness claim rather than a separate retaliation claim as well. Both parties, however, seem to argue that the claims are in fact separate. See Defs.' Br. at 30 (As Farid observes, the district court, having converted Farid's First Amendment claim into a void-for-vagueness challenge, did not rule on any retaliation claim that Farid may have pleaded.); id. at 30-34 (presenting a substantive argument for why the State should be granted summary judgment on Farid's retaliation claim). Because we are remanding this case with respect to Farid's vagueness claim, we deem it appropriate to remand as to this issue also. On remand, the District Court should determine in the first instance whether Farid adequately pled a separate claim for retaliation under the First Amendment. The Court may then hold such further proceedings as it believes appropriate in the light of its reading of Farid's complaint.