Stanford Bryant v. Tim Ochoa

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Stanford Paul Bryant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and denial of due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s retaliation claim against defendants Drake and Madden because Bryant failed to allege that they took any adverse action against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of retaliation claim).

However, Bryant appears to have sufficiently alleged a retaliation claim against the remaining defendants, who allegedly directly or indirectly disciplined Bryant through a false rules violation in retaliation for making verbal complaints, submitting written grievances, and/or filing a civil rights action against them or other prison officials. See id.; see also…