Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mays v. Kosinskigreen2 sentences2021Taking that allegation as true, we sustained DOC’s preliminary 10 objections, holding that “[a] change of [an inmate’s] custody level and his subsequent transfer [to more restrictive housing] cannot be considered adverse actions for the purpose of a prison retaliation claim.” Id. at 949 . 2019Importantly, however, “[a] change of [an inmate’s] custody level and his subsequent transfer cannot be considered adverse actions for the purpose of a prison retaliation claim.” Mays v. Kosinski, 86 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); see also 37 Pa. Code § 93.11 (a) (“An inmate does not have a right to be housed in a particular facility or in a particular area within a facility.”). | 3 | 4 |
Yount v. Pennsylvania Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2019Second, DOC insists that, because Bronson has no right to be confined as he chooses, we must defer to DOC’s housing judgments. 4 Given this disposition, we need not address the statute of limitations issue that DOC has raised. 10 A prison retaliation claim arises when “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). 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). | 3 | 3 |
Richardson v. Wetzelgreen1 sentence2017Retaliation 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). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Independence Townshipgreen1 sentence2016To state a prison retaliation claim, “a plaintiff must allege: (1) constitutionally protected conduct, (2) retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights, and (3) a causal link between the constitutionally protected conduct and the retaliatory action.” Thomas v. Independence Township, 463 F.3d 285, 296 (3d Cir. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
L. Brown v. J. Wetzel
green
1 sentence2019Although the elements of a prison retaliation claim differ slightly among federal courts, generally courts require 9 In Brown v. Wetzel, 179 A.3d 1161 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018), this Court set forth our standard of review, as follows: Where a [trial court] dismisses a complaint based on preliminary objections, this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Turner v. Safley
green
1 sentence2019In Yount, the Supreme Court explained: Retaliation claims are guided by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 . . . (1987), which held “courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration . . . ,” and great deference must be accorded to the administrative determinations of prison officials. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.