Shannon Riley v. S. Roach

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s position on Riley’s retaliation claim against Roach for refusing to release him from his cell on July 8 and 9, 2009. Riley claims that when he asked Roach on July 8 why he was refusing to release Riley from his cell, Roach replied, “I don’t like inmate paper pushers. Specifically when inmates file against one of my buddies.” The record also contains two inmate affidavits attesting that Roach treated Riley differently from other inmates by refusing to release him from his cell for work. I believe this evidence is sufficient to sustain Riley’s prima facie burden under Mt. Healthy to show that retaliation was a motivating factor behind Roach’s refusal to release Riley from his cell on the dates in question. For reasons discussed infra, I also believe that Riley’s direct evidence of Roach’s retaliatory intent is sufficient at the summary judgment stage to sustain Riley’s burden to “plead[] and prove the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains,” as required by Pratt. See Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1289-90 (“Because Bruce raised a jury issue that the stated penological…

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Shannon Riley, a California inmate, appeals from the district *506 court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Defendants-Appel-lees S. Roach and E. Morris retaliated against him for filing a prison grievance. In addition, Riley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 action against Defendants-Appellees Medina, Nickerson, and Smith (“Appeals Coordinators”) for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Riley alleged the Appeals Coordinators failed to properly process grievances he filed against Officer Morris. We review de novo. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009) (summary judgment). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 1

A. Retaliation Claims

1. Officer Roach

The district court correctly held that Riley did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of Roach’s actions. To establish the element of causation at summary judgment, Riley “must show that his protected conduct was the ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind the…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 09 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHANNON RILEY, No. 12-15891

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-02088-CW

v.

MEMORANDUM*

S. ROACH, Correctional Officer and E.

MORRIS, Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior District Judge.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Shannon Riley, a California inmate, appeals from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. Defendants-Appellees S. Roach and E. Morris retaliated against him for filing…