Garland Darnell v. J. Vargas
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Garland Shaun Darnell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2002), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to effect timely service, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Darnell’s retaliation claim because defendants established that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Vargas’s alleged conduct was motivated by retaliation and whether it did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (discussing elements of retaliation claim); Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir.1994) (explaining that court can grant unopposed summary judgment only when “the moving party bears its burden of showing its entitlement to judgment”).