Mack

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Edward Mack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his disciplinary conviction and punishment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mack’s retaliation claim against defendant Epperson because Mack failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Epperson filed the rules violation report because Mack had previously filed grievances against other prison officials. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of a retaliation claim). Summary judgment was proper on the retaliation claims against defendants Butikofer and Diaz because the undisputed evidence indicates that these defendants did not take an adverse action against Mack. See id.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim against Butikofer, Diaz, and Epperson because Mack failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a conspiracy. See…