Summary
affirming summary judgment where plaintiff "failed to raise a triable issue of fact of retaliation as to whether the search of his cell . . . chilled his First Amendment rights"
Summary of this case from Smith v. MendozaOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Stephen Liebb, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Sara Turner, Esq., Austin Jacobs Cattermole, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-02208-CW.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Stephen Liebb, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S. C § 1983 action alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Liebb failed to raise a triable issue of fact of retaliation as to whether the search of his cell, the issuance of the rules violation report and the confiscation of his letter chilled his First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005). Furthermore, Liebb provides no evidence apart from timing to suggest that the defendants' actions were initiated for a retaliatory rather than a legitimate penological purpose. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.