Opinion
CASE NO. 3:08-CV-887 (RNC).
September 30, 2011
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff George S. Lakner, M.D., brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Theresa C. Lantz, former Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction ("DOC"), claiming retaliation in violation of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant procured the termination of his employment with the University of Connecticut Health Center ("UCHC") because he previously exercised his constitutional right to sue the State. Defendant has moved for summary judgment. The motion is granted because plaintiff's previous lawsuit against the State did not address a matter of public concern and thus cannot provide the basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983.
Defendant also seeks summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Because the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim is unavailing, it is unnecessary to address the defense of qualified immunity.
I. Summary Judgment
II. Background
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317322Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.477 U.S. 242255
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint to clarify that the defendant is sued in her individual capacity (doc. 124). The motion is granted because the relief sought in the complaint (money damages) implied that the defendant was being sued in her individual capacity, and the defendant (whose answer includes an affirmative defense of qualified immunity) has not been prejudiced. The defendant has moved to strike the plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (doc. 121) and the plaintiff has moved to amend or correct the memorandum (doc. 127). The defendant's motion is denied and the plaintiff's motion is granted.
III. Discussion
The First Amendment protects a public employee from retaliation by a government employer only when the employee "speak[s] as a citizen addressing matters of public concern." Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006). "The same rule applies where the allegedly protected conduct is the filing of a lawsuit."Storman v. Klein, 395 Fed. Appx. 790, 793 (2d Cir. 2010). It also applies when the employee invokes the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. See Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488, 2500 (2011) ("If a public employee petitions as an employee on a matter of purely private concern, the employee's First Amendment interest must give way, as it does in speech cases.").
Whether First Amendment activity addresses a matter of public concern is an issue of law. Johnson v. Ganim, 342 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2003). In determining this issue, a court considers the "content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record." Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147-48 (2d Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff's previous lawsuit against the State did not touch on a matter of public concern. The lawsuit sought money damages for an alleged breach of the plaintiff's employment contract. As such, it cannot form the basis of a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983. See Storman, 395 Fed. Appx. at 794 (suit seeking damages for conduct that affected plaintiff alone does not implicate matter of public concern); Ruotolo v. City of New York 514 F.3d 184, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) ("generalized public interest" related to "fair or proper treatment of public employees" is not sufficient to sustain First Amendment retaliation claim); Lewis v. Cowen, 165 F.3d 154, 164 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[S]peech on a purely private matter, such as an employee's dissatisfaction with the conditions of his employment, does not pertain to a matter of public concern.").
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is hereby granted. The Clerk may close the file.
So ordered.