Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

KAVIN MAURICE RHODES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

M. ROBINSON, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:02- CV F 5018 REC DLB P 

ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND

FROM NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF

APPEALS

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS

TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Judgment was entered in this action on

February 4, 2003 after the District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation granting defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff

filed a notice of appeal on February 19, 2003. On April 25, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued an opinion reversing the judgment and remanding the action to the District Court for further

proceedings. The Court of Appeals rejected this Court’s finding that plaintiff failed to state a

cognizable claim for relief for retaliation because plaintiff has not alleged a chilling of his First

Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals stated, “In this context and at the pleading stage, we have

never required a litigant, per impossibile, to demonstrate a total chilling of his First Amendment

rights to file grievances and to pursue civil rights litigation in order to perfect a retaliation claim.” 

The Court of Appeals also reiterated that “the prohibition against retaliatory punishment is clearly 

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

 Established law in the Ninth Circuit.”

Consistent with the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, defendants are HEREBY

ORDERED to respond to the first amended complaint within 30 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 53 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2