D.Or.: Ptf stated 1A retaliation claim that SW for his property was because of his speech

Plaintiff stated a claim that execution of a search warrant for his property and writings was retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. “Here, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could conclude that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor behind the search. Plaintiff complained of officer misconduct directly to Defendant Ash and in the media, and five days later, he was subject to a search of his person, vehicles, and home. Moreover, Plaintiff alone encountered this type of search despite the undisputed evidence that many other individuals often engaged in the same conduct at the Lime Plant. Finally, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Ash was motivated to retaliate against Plaintiff based on his public criticism of Baker County’s handling of the Lime Plant and his complaints about his treatment by the BCSO. This evidence is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor behind the search.” Defendants’ “counter narrative” is for the jury. Nilsson v. Baker Cty., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211367 (D. Or. Nov. 21, 2022).*

Habeas petitioner’s Fourth Amendment Franks claim is in a successor petition that doesn’t come close to the standards for successor petition: no new constitutional rule, no new facts. In re Dickey, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32088 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2022).*