DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Craig R. Milton brought this action against Elysa and William McClintic, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff alleged that both defendants are physicians and that they violated his constitutional rights in connection with certain events that occurred when he was receiving medical treatment in February 2019 at a health clinic in Elmira (“Elmira Clinic”) that is administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”). On May 5, 2022, the Court issued a Decision and Order (Dkt. #10) (“May 5 Decision”) granting defendant Elysa McClintic’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Milton v. McClintic, 2022 WL 1423258 (W.D.N.Y. May 5, 2022). At that point, William McClintic (“defendant”) had not appeared in the action.1 On June 14, 2022, William McClintic filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him. (Dkt. #11.) Plaintiff has responded to the motion (Dkt. #13), and defendant has replied. (Dkt. #14.) BACKGROUND The relevant facts are set forth in this Court’s Decision and Order dismissing the claims against Elysa McClintic and familiarity with that decision is assumed. In brief, plaintiff is a navy veteran who has received medical treatment at the Elmira Clinic. On or about February 8, 2019, at the recommendation of an optometrist at the Elmira Clinic, plaintiff underwent eye surgery at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital (“Packer”) in Sayre, Pennsylvania. The surgeon was Elysa McClintic. Neither Packer nor Elysa McClintic have any direct association with the VA. On February 13, 2019, plaintiff saw Elysa McClintic at Packer for a followup visit. Again, the facts are laid out in the Court’s May 5 decision, but in brief, during their conversation plaintiff showed her a handgun that he carried with him. Plaintiff alleges that he did so in response to some questions she asked him about whether he carried a pistol, and that he simply showed her the gun and explained how it worked. Apparently Elysa McClintic reported this incident to some government authorities, because within the next few weeks plaintiff’s Pennsylvania pistol permit was revoked, allegedly on the ground that he was a “danger to the general public.” Complaint 27. He also lost his New York pistol permit, and two Chemung County sheriff’s deputies seized four registered handguns owned by plaintiff. In addition, the VA Health System issued a disruptive-behavior report, as a result of which plaintiff was barred for over six months from going to the Elmira Clinic, which meant that for medical treatment he had to drive to the Bath, New York clinic, about forty miles away. William McClintic is Elysa McClintic’s father-in-law. Plaintiff alleges that he previously worked at Packer, and at the time of these events was employed by the VA. Plaintiff also alleges that William McClintic, with the “encourage[ment]” of Elysa McClintic, falsely reported that plaintiff had brandished a firearm on federal property and threatened a federal employee with a firearm by pointing a pistol at Elysa McClintic’s face. Based on these allegations, plaintiff has asserted six claims for relief under §1983, all of which are asserted against both defendants: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) violation of his rights to procedural and substantive due process; (3) conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s civil rights; (4) denial of the “right to a fair proceeding,” in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (5) violation of plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; and (6) unlawful retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of his right to free speech under the First Amendment. As stated, the Court dismissed all the claims against Elysa McClintic on May 5, 2022. William McClintic filed a motion to dismiss on June 14. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on July 20. In his response, plaintiff states that he agrees that dismissal of the second, fourth and fifth claims is proper. (Dkt. #13-2 at 2 n. 1.) What remains, then, are plaintiff’s claims against William McClintic for malicious prosecution, civil rights conspiracy, and First Amendment retaliation. DISCUSSION The complaint alleges that at the time of the relevant events, defendant “was a physician employed by the VA…” (Complaint 7), which is an agency of the federal government. As framed in the complaint, however, all of plaintiff’s claims are based on 42 U.S.C. §1983, which provides a right of action for violations of one’s constitutional rights by government officials. (Complaint
