22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T488,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Curtis Harvey Merchant appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Merchant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal in light of defendant Weitzeil’s stated concern for her safety. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995) (a prisoner plaintiff “bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains”); see also Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (speculation as to defendant’s improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to raise a triable dispute of fact). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b5,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Curtis Harvey Merchant appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Merchant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal in light of defendant Weitzeil’s stated concern for her safety. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995) (a prisoner plaintiff “bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains”); see also Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (speculation as to defendant’s improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to raise a triable dispute of fact).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.