Steven Martin v. B. McKee
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California prisoner Steven Martin (“Martin”) appeals pro se from the entry of judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, following a unanimous verdict in appellee correctional officers’ favor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Captain Lea, Associate Warden McKee, Counselor Mini, Sergeant Ramos, Psychologist Wheeler, and Lieutenant Johnson (in part) on Martin’s retaliation claim. Even if we assume, without deciding, that Martin was engaged in constitutionally protected conduct, he has not raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a nexus existed between that protected activity and the alleged retaliation. Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir.2000).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Martin’s aceess-to-court claim. Martin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Matthews prevented him from bringing an actionable claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996); 02-CV-01058-GEB-JFM Docket No. 18.