Kentz v. Smith

Ninth Circuit

Kentz v. Smith

316 F. App'x 646

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

DocketNo. 07-16579

StatusPublished

This text of 316 F. App'x 646 (Kentz v. Smith) 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

Kentz v. Smith, 316 F. App'x 646 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Charles Lowell Kentz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Earlene Smith in Kentz’s action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that Smith, a librarian at Taft Correctional Institution, discriminated against him when she declined to assign him as a law library clerk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Smith presented evidence that she declined to assign Kentz as a law library clerk due to his harassing behavior toward her. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kentz failed to produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Smith acted with a discriminatory intent. See id.

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

**

Federal prisoner Charles Lowell Kentz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Earlene Smith in Kentz’s action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that Smith, a librarian at Taft Correctional Institution, discriminated against him when she declined to assign him as a law library clerk. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Smith presented evidence that she declined to assign Kentz as a law library clerk due to his harassing behavior toward her. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kentz failed to produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Smith acted with a discriminatory intent. See id.

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)

316 F. App'x 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kentz-v-smith-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack