Case ID: f-appx_617/html/0803-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles A. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N. EMERSON; K.W. Goss, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16490.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Charles A. Rogers, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Kathleen Boergers, AGCA-Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Charles A. Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendant Emerson and negligence against defendant Goss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rogers’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Rogers failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Emerson retaliated against him for filing a grievance. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir.2009) (“[A] plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind the defendant’s conduct.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rogers’s negligence claim because Rogers failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Goss was negligent in handling the allegations of harassment and retaliation. See Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 572 (9th Cir.2009) (outlining elements of negligence claim under California law).

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