Ruben Garcia, Jr. v. Smith

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 9 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, Jr., No. 14-56687

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01187-BAS-RBB v.

SMITH, Supervising Correctional Officer; MEMORANDUM* et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 7, 2016 Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, CLIFTON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ruben Garcia is a prisoner alleging retaliation, equal

protection violations, and conspiracy against several prison officials under § 1983.

He claims that he was placed in and repeatedly retained in administrative

segregation (“Ad-Seg”) in retaliation for filing grievances against prison officials;

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. that he was denied a request to be housed with his brother in retaliation for…

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Ruben Garcia is a prisoner alleging retaliation, equal protection violations, and conspiracy against several prison officials under § 1983. He claims that he was placed in and repeatedly retained , in administrative segregation (“Ad-Seg”) in retaliation for filing grievances against prison officials; that he was denied a request to be housed with his brother in retaliation for filing grievances; that the same denial also violated his equal protection rights; and that various defen *583 dants conspired to retaliate against him by keeping him in Ad-Seg.

Several Defendants were dismissed from the case on summary judgment. Garcia appealed those grants of summary judgment to this court, and this court affirmed. Some claims proceeded to trial, where a jury found in favor of Defendants. Garcia now appeals his post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, as well as certain summary judgment claims that were not previously appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. Retaliation Claims

“[Pjurely retaliatory actions taken against a prisoner for having exercised [the right to file grievances] ... violate the Constitution.” Rhodes v. Robinson,…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent, in part. I would affirm the district court’s judgment in its entirety.

*587 I do not believe that Plaintiff Garcia presented evidence sufficient to establish genuine disputes of material fact. Most importantly, I focus on the majority’s objection, above at 4-5, that Defendants failed to present evidence to support the purported prison policy that caused Plaintiff to be transferred to administrative segregation. I have no difficulty discerning how the policy served legitimate penological purposes. If an inmate complains about excessive force by corrections officers, it make obvious sense to put the prisoner into what amounted to protective custody, to protect both the integrity of the investigation and the prisoner from alleged abusers. We might think there was a better way to accomplish those results, but we are not experts. Plaintiff presented no evidence to the contrary. Our speculation should not fill in for Plaintiffs lack of evidence.