Dennison

MEMORANDUM

Andre Dennison, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from a judgment entered after a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit in violation of his First Amendment rights. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

1. Summary Judgment

Dennison contends the district court erred by granting summary judgment to one defendant when it became evident at trial that she filed a false incident report. We disagree. There is no evidence that the report was filed in retaliation for Dennison’s prior lawsuit against another prison official. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

2. Stipulations

Dennison contends that during summary judgment proceedings, former defense counsel made certain oral stipulations that should have been admitted as undisputed facts at trial. The district coui’t refused, reasoning the alleged stipulations were not reduced to writing as required by a local rule and that facts “presumed for purposes of the summary judgment are not binding as stipulated facts for purposes of the trial even if they were assumed true…