Curtis Merchant v. H. Lopez
Curtis Harvey MERCHANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. LOPEZ, Correctional Food Manager II; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Raymond C. Fisher
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS HARVEY MERCHANT, No. 11-55724 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00856-WQH- NLS v. H. LOPEZ, Correctional Food Manager II; MEMORANDUM * et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Curtis Harvey Merchant appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. §1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Merchant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal in light of defendant Weitzeil’s stated concern for her safety. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (a prisoner plaintiff “bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains”);
see also Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2003)
(speculation as to defendant’s improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to raise a triable dispute of fact).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-55724