context: Given this evidence and Natural Heritage's role as an advocacy organization, there is no evidence that defendants' concern for the vitality of the heronry was a pretext. As compared to plaintiff's contentions -- that defendants were motivated by Mr. Baker's dated and somewhat elusive opposition to unrealized legislation and by Mr. Baker's suit against Dr. Parsons, threatened after defendants had already expressed opposition to the proposed pier -- defendants' explanation "seems both the most logical inference and one that is wholly consistent with the alleged [delays and] irregularities" in defendants' review process.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 964 F.2d 39, 39, 43
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim regarding a waste disposal permit "failfed] for lack of evidence that whatever shortcomings and irregularities occurred were in retaliation for [his] personal political views"
citation_a.sentence: Custodio, 964 F.2d at 39, 43 (holding that the plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim regarding a waste disposal permit “failfed] for lack of evidence that whatever shortcomings and irregularities occurred were in retaliation for [his] personal political views”); see also Cloutier, 714 F.2d at 1192 (“It is difficult to infer that defendants were motivated by dislike of plaintiffs’ exercise of free speech rather than simply by disapproval of the proposed [pier].”); cf. Pilgrim, 118 F.3d at 871 (“The only inference that can be drawn ... is that for whatever reason [plaintiff] received different treatment, it was as likely due to a clash of personalities as [racial discrimination].”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 118 F.3d 871, 871
citation_b.parenthetical: "The only inference that can be drawn ... is that for whatever reason [plaintiff] received different treatment, it was as likely due to a clash of personalities as [racial discrimination]."
citation_b.sentence: Custodio, 964 F.2d at 39, 43 (holding that the plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim regarding a waste disposal permit “failfed] for lack of evidence that whatever shortcomings and irregularities occurred were in retaliation for [his] personal political views”); see also Cloutier, 714 F.2d at 1192 (“It is difficult to infer that defendants were motivated by dislike of plaintiffs’ exercise of free speech rather than simply by disapproval of the proposed [pier].”); cf. Pilgrim, 118 F.3d at 871 (“The only inference that can be drawn ... is that for whatever reason [plaintiff] received different treatment, it was as likely due to a clash of personalities as [racial discrimination].”).