OPINION & ORDER Bernard Thomas (“Plaintiff”) brings this pro se Action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, against Lieutenant John DeCastro (“DeCastro”), Deputy Superintendent of Security Timothy Humphrey (“Humphrey”), Deputy Superintendent for Programs Jean King (“King”), Lieutenant Steven Katz (“Katz”), Correction Officer Damian Velez (“Velez”), Brenda Clark (“Clark”), Imam Samuel Encarnacion (“Encarnacion”), and Director of Special Housing Albert Prack (“Prack”) (collectively, the “AC Defendants”), alleging that while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility (“Woodbourne”), the AC Defendants violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by issuing him false misbehavior reports and subsequently subjecting him to retaliatory disciplinary hearings. (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 70).) By Opinion & Order dated March 29, 2019, the Court dismissed all claims against Humphrey, King, Katz, Velez, Clark, Encarnacion, and Prack, and all but one claim against DeCastro (hereinafter, “Defendant”). (Op. & Order (Dkt. No. 89).) Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 156).) For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is granted. I. Background A. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the declarations submitted, (Dkt. Nos. 158-62), and Defendant’s Statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (Def.’s Rule 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Motion (“Def.’s 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 164)).1 These facts are recounted “in the light most favorable to” Plaintiff, the non-movant. Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). The facts as described below are not in dispute, except to the extent indicated. 1. Plaintiff’s Work on the IGRC Plaintiff first entered the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) in 1983 and was in and out of DOCCS custody until 2014. (Decl. of Brendan Horan in Supp. of Mot. (“Horan Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 161) Ex. B (“Pl. Dep.”) 12:17-16:9 (Dkt. No. 161-2).) Plaintiff entered Woodbourne in or around 2007 or 2008, where he remained until approximately 2013. (Id. at 19:9-20:1.) From approximately 2009 through 2012, Plaintiff served as a member of Woodbourne’s Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (“IGRC”). (Id. at 21:14-19.)2 The IGRC’s role was to collect grievances from inmates around the facility, call each grievant before the full IGRC to determine whether the grievant wished to go forward with the grievance, and, if the grievant did wish to go forward, hold a hearing to determine if the grievance was substantiated. (Id. at 32:19-23, 42:11-43:2, 59:9-60:15.) The IGRC would then formalize its determination in a written opinion, which either the grievant or the subject of the grievance could appeal to the superintendent of the facility. (Id. at 59:5-61:12.) Plaintiff first came to know Defendant as a result of Plaintiff’s work on the IGRC, as Plaintiff helped to adjudicate a number of grievances that were made against Defendant by other inmates. (Id. at 51:13-52:1, 53:11-55:8.) Plaintiff testified that after the IGRC resolved five to six grievances against Defendant, Defendant began to impose unmerited minor punishments on Plaintiff, such as unnecessary cell searches or reprimands for failure to properly display his identification card. (Id. at 67:16-71:24.) Based on this behavior, Plaintiff came to believe that Defendant had a “personal vendetta” against him based on Plaintiff’s role on the IGRC in finding grievances made against Defendant to be substantiated. (Id.) Defendant attested that he neither recalled any grievances filed against him while Plaintiff was on the IGRC nor that he ever felt any animosity toward Plaintiff or the IGRC. (Decl. of John DeCastro in Supp. of Mot. (“DeCastro Decl.”)
32-34 (Dkt. No. 158).) 2. The April 2, 2013 Misbehavior Report At some point prior to April 2, 2013, Plaintiff sent out a letter in an envelope addressed to: “Mr. Mike Distefano Esq., [Attorney At Law], P.O. Box 30201, New Yo…” (the “Letter”). (See DeCastro Decl. Ex. A (brackets in original); see also Pl. Dep. 113:17-115:25; Def.’s 56.1 1.)3 The envelope was stamped “LEGAL MAIL,” and bore Plaintiff’s name, Plaintiff’s DIN, and Woodbourne’s address on the upper left-hand corner as a return address. (See DeCastro Decl. Ex. A; Pl. Dep. 116:1-3, 117:8-14; Def.’s 56.1
