In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated his

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

In this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. For the following reasons, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is a Correction Officer with the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"). Plaintiff claims that he was investigated and disciplined after complaining about the inadequate staffing at the jail complex on Rikers Island, which he alleges endangered staff and incarcerated individuals. Plaintiff claims that his discipline violated his First Amendment rights because it was punishment in retaliation for his speech. Plaintiff also contends that the search of his personal cell phone and locker violated the Fourth Amendment. Defendant contends that it conducted the search and disciplined Plaintiff due to his violation of DOC rules by maintaining an inappropriate personal relationship with an incarcerated individual and providing that individual with unauthorized items. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion and dismisses both claims.

The Court rejects Plaintiff's First Amendment claim. First, Plaintiff's speech in this instance was not protected under the First Amendment. In making the complaint about staffing, Plaintiff was not speaking as a citizen but was speaking pursuant to his official duties. Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2010). Moreover, the complaint did not address a matter of public concern, but Plaintiff's personal grievances about his workload and working conditions. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that his speech was of public concern simply because it related to DOC's ability to protect the individuals in its custody. In any event, even if the speech were protected, Plaintiff's discipline did not violate his rights because his complaint was disruptive to the operations of the DOC. See Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968). And finally, even if Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the Court finds that the Defendant would have taken the same actions regardless of Plaintiff's speech, due to Plaintiff's violation of the rules regarding interactions with incarcerated individuals.1 Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is similarly without merit under the law governing searches of public employees. First, the Court finds that Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his City-issued locker, or in his cell phone, as the phone was used for business purposes and Plaintiff was on notice that it could be subject to search. Even assuming that he had an expectation of privacy in his personal cell phone, the search of both the phone and locker was lawful because it was justified in its inception and reasonable in its scope. See O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987). The Court finds that the anonymous tip received by DOC provided sufficient justification for the search. Moreover, DOC was obligated to investigate

1 Defendant does not contest for purposes of this motion that Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action.

whether Plaintiff had an inappropriate relationship with a female incarcerated individual or had brought contraband into the jail, in order to maintain the safety and security of the facility. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.