Yount test in Pennsylvania

2017Retaliation Claims A prison retaliation claim requires proof that ‘the inmate engaged in constitutionally[-]protected conduct, prison officials took adverse action, and the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the action.’ Yount v. Dep[’]t of Corr[.], . . . 966 A.2d 1115, 1120 ([Pa.] 2009); see also Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353, 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (applying Yount test and finding no factual averments in the complaint demonstrating retaliatory conduct by prison officials).

2014A prison retaliation claim requires proof that “the inmate engaged in constitutionally protected conduct, prison officials took adverse action, and the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the action.” Yount v. Department of Corrections, 600 Pa. 418, 426 , 966 A.2d 1115, 1120 (2009); see also Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 358, 357 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (applying Yount test and finding no factual aver-ments in the complaint demonstrating retaliatory conduct by prison officials). “[A]dministrative prisoner transfers are presumed to further a legitimate penological objective.”

2022This final prong is designed to prevent any “‘potential for abuse’ inherent in retaliation claims and also [to promote the] policy of judicial deference to the prison officials’ ‘legitimate interest in effective management of a detention facility.’” Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353, 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Yount, 966 A.2d at 1120-21 ). “‘Claims of retaliation fail if the alleged retaliatory conduct violations were issued for the actual violation of a prison rule.’” Horan v. Newingham (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2622 C.D. 2015, filed Oct. 24, 2016), slip op. at 9 (quoting Hartsfield v. Nichols,

2017Retaliation Claims A prison retaliation claim requires proof that ‘the inmate engaged in constitutionally[-]protected conduct, prison officials took adverse action, and the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the action.’ Yount v. Dep[’]t of Corr[.], . . . 966 A.2d 1115, 1120 ([Pa.] 2009); see also Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353, 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (applying Yount test and finding no factual averments in the complaint demonstrating retaliatory conduct by prison officials).

2017This Court found the “some evidence” standard to be “particularly apt because it [was] consonant with the fourth prong of the Yount test, which requires the prisoner to prove that the misconduct [did] not further a legitimate penological goal . . . .” Id.

2017This Court found the “some evidence” standard to be “particularly apt because it [was] consonant with the fourth prong of the Yount test, which requires the prisoner to prove that the misconduct [did] not further a legitimate penological goal . . . .” Id.

2022For purposes of a retaliation claim, an adverse action is “one which is ‘sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his [constitutional rights.]’” Yount, 966 A.2d at 1121 (quoting Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2000)) (alteration in original).

2022For purposes of a retaliation claim, an adverse action is “one which is ‘sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his [constitutional rights.]’” Yount, 966 A.2d at 1121 (quoting Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 2000)) (alteration in original).

2017Prior case law has held that “limiting the amount of material that an inmate may keep in his cell is rationally related to legitimate penological goals of 10 safety and security.” Hackett, 751 A.2d at 275 (finding that a prison regulation limiting each inmate to ten books and one box of legal materials was valid).

2017Prior case law has held that “limiting the amount of material that an inmate may keep in his cell is rationally related to legitimate penological goals of 10 safety and security.” Hackett, 751 A.2d at 275 (finding that a prison regulation limiting each inmate to ten books and one box of legal materials was valid).

2017Mays v. Kosinski, 86 A.3d 945, 948-49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

2016This standard is particularly apt because it is consonant with the fourth prong of the Yount test, which requires the prisoner to prove that the misconduct does not further a legitimate penological goal, and also this Court’s statement in Richardson that retaliation is shown when the misconduct charge has no rational basis in fact or law. 5 See Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 1994) (“We conclude . . . that [the prisoner’s] retaliation claim must fail.

2016This standard is particularly apt because it is consonant with the fourth prong of the Yount test, which requires the prisoner to prove that the misconduct does not further a legitimate penological goal, and also this Court’s statement in Richardson that retaliation is shown when the misconduct charge has no rational basis in fact or law. 5 See Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 469 (8th Cir. 1994) (“We conclude . . . that [the prisoner’s] retaliation claim must fail.