Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Jolley v. Vinton, 196 Conn. App. 379 (2020)

Citation
Jolley v. Vinton, 196 Conn. App. 379 (2020)
Parent Document
Jolley v. Vinton, 196 Conn. App. 379 (2020)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2020-03-10

Full Text

2,187 chars
The self-represented, incarcerated plaintiff brought this action against the
   defendant, a former state correctional institution administrative captain,
   claiming violations of his federal constitutional rights. The plaintiff
   alleged that the defendant retaliated against him for providing legal
   advice to his fellow inmates by ordering the search of the plaintiff’s
   cell, the seizure of items from his cell, and the removal of the plaintiff
   from his job at the prison’s gym. Following a trial to the court, the court
   rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff
   failed to prove that he was engaged in an activity protected by the first
   amendment, that he was denied access to the courts in a specific,
   pending, personal action, and that there was any causal connection
   between his alleged protected conduct and the defendant’s alleged retal-
   iatory acts. From that judgment, the plaintiff appealed to this court.
   Held that the trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of the
   defendant, as that court’s finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove
   a causal connection between his conduct and the defendant’s alleged
   retaliation was not clearly erroneous: the court concluded that there
   was no evidence of a retaliatory motive on the basis of the defendant’s
   testimony, which the court expressly found was credible, and the court
   noted that the only evidence to establish a causal relationship between
   the discharge of the plaintiff from his gym job and any claimed protected
   activity was that of temporal proximity, which the court found insuffi-
   cient to establish a causal connection; ample evidence supported the
   court’s finding that the defendant’s actions that the plaintiff alleged were
   retaliatory were premised solely on legitimate motives, and, although
   the plaintiff pointed to evidence that he asserted supported his claim
   of retaliation, the mere existence of evidence to support an alternative
   conclusion is not sufficient to reverse a trial court’s findings of fact.
Submitted on briefs December 11, 2019—officially released March 10, 2020 Procedural History