Gary Goodwin v. Josh Hall

MEMORANDUM

Gary Lee Goodwin appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking a declaratory judgment that a restriction on his post-prison supervision violates his First Amendment rights. We review de novo, Patel v. City of Los Angeles, 686 F.3d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir.2012), and may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Summary judgment was proper as to Goodwin’s retaliation claim because Goodwin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants have restricted his ability to associate or reside with Mr. Sharp in retaliation for Goodwin’s protected conduct. See Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (holding in the First Amendment retaliation context that speculation as to the defendant’s “improper motive does not rise to the level of evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goodwin’s free association claim to the extent that defendants have restricted Goodwin’s ability to reside with Mr.…