Opinion ID: 800677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review and Analytical Framework

Text: Following a bench trial, we review de novo the district court's conclusions of law. Woolsey v. Hunt, 932 F.2d 555, 563 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 867, 112 S.Ct. 195, 116 L.Ed.2d 155 (1991). We review the district court's findings of fact, however, for clear error. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). In assessing for clear error, the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6). A district court has committed clear error only when `the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). If the district court's account is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse. Id. at 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504. We cannot find that the district court committed clear error [w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, id., even if we would have weighed the evidence differently, Beaven v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 622 F.3d 540, 556 (6th Cir.2010). To state a claim for relief under § 1983 for a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and two-that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 394. Because of the prior rulings, the only issue at trial was the third elementwhether there was a causal connection between the increase in King's security level and his participation in the Cain litigation or his assistance in the filing of grievances. King bore the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his reclassification was motivated at least in part by King's protected conduct. Id. at 399. Upon such a showing, the defendant must show[] by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision . . . even in the absence of the protected conduct. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); see also Sowards v. Loudon Cnty., 203 F.3d 426, 431 n. 1 (6th Cir.) ([I]n a First Amendment retaliation case, once a plaintiff shows that her constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial factor in an adverse employment decision, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 875, 121 S.Ct. 179, 148 L.Ed.2d 123 (2000).