Chung Chung Kao v. Delfin

Ninth Circuit

Chung Chung Kao v. Delfin

599 F. App'x 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 2015

DocketNo. 13-56496

StatusPublished

This text of 599 F. App'x 680 (Chung Chung Kao v. Delfin) 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

Chung Chung Kao v. Delfin, 599 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Chung Kao, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kao failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Delfín took an adverse action against Kao that was in response to protected conduct and did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d at 1289.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kao’s motion to file a late opposition because he failed to establish excusable neglect. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.2010) (standard of review and factors for determining whether neglect is excusable).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kao’s motion to reconsider because Kao failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Chung Kao, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kao failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Delfín took an adverse action against Kao that was in response to protected conduct and did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d at 1289.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kao’s motion to file a late opposition because he failed to establish excusable neglect. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.2010) (standard of review and factors for determining whether neglect is excusable).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kao’s motion to reconsider because Kao failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

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

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Bruce v. Ylst

351 F.3d 1283 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Rhodes v. Robinson

408 F.3d 559 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 F. App'x 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chung-chung-kao-v-delfin-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack