Berry v. Baker

Ninth Circuit

Berry v. Baker

320 F. App'x 725

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 2009

DocketNo. 07-17397

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 725 (Berry v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berry v. Baker, 320 F. App'x 725 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Waymon Mickiangelo Berry, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy and retaliated against him for filing grievances against prison officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Berry’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Berry did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his placement in administrative segregation, his disciplinary charge, and his transfer to another prison facility failed to advance a legitimate penological interest. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (describing elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).

It follows that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Berry’s conspiracy claim. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1989) (explaining that a plaintiff must show a deprivation of his constitutional rights to establish a conspiracy).

Berry’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Waymon Mickiangelo Berry, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy and retaliated against him for filing grievances against prison officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Berry’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Berry did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his placement in administrative segregation, his disciplinary charge, and his transfer to another prison facility failed to advance a legitimate penological interest. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (describing elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).

It follows that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Berry’s conspiracy claim. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1989) (explaining that a plaintiff must show a deprivation of his constitutional rights to establish a conspiracy).

Berry’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-baker-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack