N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GEOR GE M . PASION, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JOHN A. HAVILAND; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16972 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-03227-GGH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia G re g o ry G. Hollows, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 20, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd WATFORD, C irc u it Judge s, a nd OLIVER , C hie f Distric t Judge . ** 1. Pla intiff Ge orge Pa sion submitte d e vide nc e from whic h a re a sona ble jury c ould infe r that C a

pta in R . C a

ppe l a c te d with a

re ta lia tory m otive whe n he de c ide d to ke e p Pa sion in a dm inistra tive se gre g ation. 

# FIL ED D EC 22 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Solom on Olive r, Jr., C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.Pa ge 2 of 6

The first pie c e of e vide nc e Pa sion re lie s on— the a lle ge d ly

suspe c t tim ing of his pla c e m e nt in a dm i n istra tive se gre g ation—

would not suffic e sta

n ding a lone to avoid sum

m ary judgm e nt. One of C a

p pe l’ s justific ations for ke e ping Pa sion in a dm inistra

tive se gre gation wa s tha

t doing so wa s ne c e ssa

ry in orde r to prote c t the inte grity of the prison’ s ongoing inve stiga tion into Pa sion’ s e xc e ssive forc e c om pla i nt. If tha

t we re so, Pa sion a

rgue s , he would ha

ve be e n pla c e d in a dm inistra

tive se gre gation in July

2008— whe n he initia lly

file d his c om pla i nt— rathe r tha n in Fe b ruary

2009. B ut the re c ord shows tha t the prison did not be gin inte rvie wing witne s se s until 2009, whe n Pa sion file d

his inte rna l a

ppe a l, so the re wa s no inve stiga

tion to prote c t until then. The tim i ng of Pa sion’ s pla c e m e nt is not ne c e ssa

rily suspe c t on its own. The re m a i ning e vide nc e Pa sion re lie s on c arrie s m ore forc e . On the re c ord be fore us, a

re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha

t se ve ra l of the a l te rnative justific at ions C a

ppe l offe re d

for ke e ping Pa sion in a dm inistra tive se gre gat ion we re sim ply not supporte d by

the fa c ts. In the na

rra tive e xpla

nation for his de c ision, for e xam ple , C a ppe l sta te d tha t be c a use Pa sion ha d lodge d a

n e xc e ssive forc e c om pla i nt, Pa sion him se lf wa s “ a thre at to the sa fe ty

and se c urity

of this institution, its sta

ff and inm ate s .” Nothing in the re c ord be fore us supports tha t a sse rtion. And C a

ppe l’ s othe r c he c k-box e xpla nat ions for thepla c e m e nt c ould a lsoPa ge 3 of 6

be vie we d

by a re a sona ble jury a s pre te xtua l rathe r tha

n le gitim ate , sinc e on the re c o rd be fore us no fa c ts a ppe ar to support them

e i the r. That le ave s, a s the only

pla usible justific ation for C a ppe l ’ s de c ision, his a sse rtion tha

t Pa s ion’ s re turn to thege ne ra l popula tion would je opa

rdiz e the

“ inte g rity of a n inve stiga

tion of a lle ge d se rious m isc onduc t or c rim ina l a c tivity .” Onc e a ga in, no e vide n c e in the re c ord be fore us supports tha t sta t e d justific ation. The re is no indic ation, for e xam ple , tha t Pa sion ha d ta

ke n a ny ste ps to inte rfe re with theinve stiga

tion, or tha

t the c irc um sta

nc e s of Pa sion’ s c a s e gave rise to a non-spe c ulat ive risk tha

t he m ight a

tte m pt to inte rfe re with theinve stiga tion. In the a bse nc e of e vide n c e supporting this la st a sse rte d justific ation, a re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha

t it, too, wa s pre te xtua l. It would not be

e nough for a

jury to find tha

t C a ppe l’ s sta t e d justific ations for re ta i ning Pa sion in a dm inistra tive se gre gation we re pre te xtua l. To pre va il, Pa sion m ust a lso prove tha

t C a ppe l’ s sta te d justific ations we re offe re d to c o ve r up one pa rtic ula r ille gitim at e m otive

—

re ta l iation a g a inst Pa sion for e xe rc ising his First Am e ndm e nt rights. Se e Lac e y v . Maric o pa C nty . , 693 F.3d 896, 916–17 (9th C ir. 2012). Pa sion ha s introduc e d e vide nc e tha t, if be lie v e d by

the jury , c ould support a judgm e nt in his fa

vor. B oth Pa sion a

n d C a p pe l te stifie d tha

t, im m e diate ly be fore m aking thede c ision to re ta in Pa sion in a dm inistra tivePa ge 4 of 6

se gre gation, C a

ppe l a ske d Pa sion if heinte nde d to withdra w his c o m

pla int. Pa sion te stifie d tha

t C a ppe l did so “ a ggre ssive l y , with loud tone on his voic e ,” and tha

t he infe rre d tha

t C a ppe l wa s thre ate ning to re ta in him in a dm inistra

tive se gre gation if he did not withdra

w his c om

pla int. On this re c ord, a

re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude that C a

ppe l a c t e d with re ta lia tory inte n t . The tone of C a

ppe l’ s c onve rsat ion with Pa sion is a m ate ria l a

nd dispute d fa c t, a

nd a re a sona ble jury c ould re ly

on the c onte xt within which C a ppe l que stione d Pa sion to infe r re ta lia tory inte nt. Ac c ording to Pa sion, his c onve rsation with C a ppe l took pla c e a ga inst theba c kground unde rsta nding tha t the prison’ s ge ne ra l polic y wa s to pla c e a ll c om pla ining inm at e s in a d

m inistra t ive se gre gation in orde r to disc oura ge the m from e x e rc i sing the ir rights. If a jury we re to c re dit Pa sion’ s ve rsion of e ve nts, C a ppe l did not ne e d to sa

y m u c h to m ake Pa sion unde rsta nd tha t his re turn to thege ne ra l popula tion wa s c onditione d on withdra wing his c om

pla int. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting C a ppe l’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. W e de c line to a ddre ss C a ppe l’ s argum e nt tha

t he is e ntitle d to sum

m ary judgm e nt on theba sis of qua lifie d im m unity . W e re m and so that the distric t c ourt c an c onside r that issue in the first insta nc e . Se e C

olw e ll v . Banniste r , 763 F.3d 1060, 1071 n.5 (9th C ir. 2014).Pa ge 5 of 6

2. The distric t c ourt a lso e rre d in dismissing Pa sion’ s c la im a ga inst Lie ute na nt D. M c G u ire . Pa sion a lle ge d tha t the re wa s “ no justific ation” for M c G uire ’ s initia l de c ision to plac e him in the “ h o le .” Pa sion a

ppe nde d to his c om pla i nt the only w ritte n e xpla nation provide d by

M c Guire , whic h

c am e two we e ks a fte r the pla c e m e nt de c ision. Tha t e xpla nat ion sta te d tha t Pa s ion wa s

“ pla c e d in Adm inistra

tive Se gre gation for the

ac c usation of staff misc

onduc t .” (Em pha s is a dde d.) Give n the libe ra l c onstruc tion a fforde d pro se pla intiffs, we find tha t Pa sion ha s a d e quate ly

sta te d a First Am e ndm e nt c la im of re ta lia tion a s to M c G uire . The distric t c ourt did not err, howe v e r, in dism i ssing Pa sion’ s c om

pla int a s to Assoc iate W arde n V. Singh. Pa sion’ s c om pla i nt sta te s only that

Singh he a de d the c om m itte e tha t re t a ine d him

in a dm inistra

tive se gre gation a

nd tha t Singh

“ c o nspire d with” C a

ppe l a nd M c Guire . Suc h c onc lusory a lle gations a

re insuffic ie nt to sta

te a c l a im on whic h re lie f c an be grante d. 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de c lining to a p point c ounse l for Pa sion be fore ruling on C a ppe l ’ s sum

m ary judgm e n t m otion, given the re lative ly stra ightforwa

rd nature of the issue s ra ise d in tha t m o tion. Se e Palme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C i r. 2009). Pa sion ha d no right to c ounse l in this suit, a nd he did not de m onstra

te tha t “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

n c e s ” c om

pe lle d thePa ge 6 of 6

a ppointm e nt of c ounse l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(1). Se e id. Howe ve r, the distric t c o urt itse lf re c ogniz e d tha t if the c a se proc e e de d pa st sum m ary judgm e nt, a ppointm e nt of c ounse l m i ght be wa rrante d . On re m and, Pa s ion will be fre e to re ne w his re que st for a

ppointe d c ounse l. 4. C osts a

re aw arde d to the a

ppe l la nt. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , V ACAT E D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.