Curtis Downing v. Johnnie Graves

MEMORANDUM

Curtis Downing appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and the district court’s dismissal of his access to courts claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1916 (e)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, King v. AC & R Advert., 65 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 1995), and the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

I. First Amendment retaliation and related claims

A viable First Amendment retaliation claim requires five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to three of these elements: the causation of an adverse action; the chilling of Downing’s…