Floyd Scott v. D v. Rothchild, Officer C.A. Miller Henry Lawrence

66 F.3d 336 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Floyd SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.V. ROTHCHILD, Officer; C.A. Miller; Henry Lawrence, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16586. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 5, 1995. * Decided Sept. 8, 1995. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Floyd Scott appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison in Scott's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that he was wrongfully disciplined in retaliation for filing an administrative appeal against a prison official. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and we affirm. 3 * Background 4 Defendant D.V. Rothchild, a correctional officer, filed a disciplinary report against Scott…