Case ID: f-appx_648/html/0740-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kale VORAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John SERVATIUS, Individually; Chuck Prather, Individually, aka Charles Prather, aka Charles E. Prather, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-36112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 19, 2016.
    Kale Vorak, Aberdeen, WA, pro se.
    
      Candie M. Dibble, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
      
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Kale Vorak appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim arising out of the filing of prison grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vorak failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with a retaliatory motive or whether there was an absence of legitimate correctional goals for defendants’ conduct. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir.2014) (“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that it is the plaintiffs burden to prove the absence of a legitimate correctional goal and that courts “should afford appropriate deference and flexibility to prison officials” when evaluating proffered legitimate goals (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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