N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ODNEY B ER

NARD B A R

NO, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ARM ANDO PADILLA; DER R EK C AM PAGNA; ALVIN SAINT-LOUIS; GAYLEN W OODS; A. KUSTER ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-15829 D.C . No. 3:20-c v-03886-SI
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 27, 2023 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia prisone r R odne y

B arno a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a l le ging tha t c o rre c tiona l 

# FIL ED OCT 27 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).offic e rs re ta lia t e d a ga inst him
. Se e U.S. C onst. a m e nd I; Brodhe im v
. C

ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th C ir. 2009). 1 W e re vie w de novo, 2 and we a ffirm
. 3 The distric t c ourt did not err in e nte ring sum m ary judgm e n t on B arno’ s C la im 1 be c a u se he fa ile d to show the

e xiste nc e of a

ge nuine issue for tria l a s to
e a c h re quire d e le m e nt of the c la im
. Se e C e lote x C orp. v . C atre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322–24, 106 S. C t . 2548, 2552–53, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). First, a s to som e of the c onduc t of whic h B arno c om pla ins, 4 the re wa s no e vide nc e tha t the offic e rs
a c te d “ ‘ be c a

u se of’ ” 5 B arno’ s filing of grie va nc e s. On the c ontra

ry , the re c ord showe d tha

t the y a c te d to a dva

n c e the prison’ s le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa ls a nd
ne e ds. Se e Pratt v . Row l

and , 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th C ir. 1995); Barne t t v . C e ntoni ,

1 B arno a s se rts tha

t he did not re c e ive any

of the doc um e nts file d by De fe nda nts in this a

ppe a l . Howe ve r, De fe nda nts file d c e rtific at e s of se rvic e e sta blishing tha

t the y m a ile d the doc um e nts to B arno. Eve n a ssum ing B arno did not re c e ive the doc um e nts, B a rno ha s wa ive d the right to filea re ply brie f. W e the re fore proc e e d to de c i de this a ppe a l on the m e rits. 2 Fordle y v . Lizarraga , 18 F.4th 344, 350 (9th C ir. 2021); Brodhe im , 584 F.3d at 1267.

3 “ W e m ay

. . . a ffirm

on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord.” Mc C

ollum v
. C al. De p’t of C orr. &Re hab. , 647 F.3d 870, 882 (9th C i r. 2011). 4 De fe nda nt W oods’ pla c e m e nt of the sign; De fe nda nt C am pa gna ’ s inform ing B arno of a

bunkm a te a ssignm e nt; De fe nda nt Sa int-Louis’ s ha

ndc uffing B arno, pla c ing him in a

holding c e ll, a

nd thre ate ning him ; a

nd De fe nda

nt Pa dilla ’ s a djudic a tion of disc iplina ry c h a rge s a ga inst B arno a

nd im position of punishm

e nt. 5 Brodhe im , 584 F.3d a

t 1269; se e Mc C

ollum , 647 F.3d a

t 882. 231 F.3d 813, 815–16 (9th C ir. 1994). B arno’ s spe c ulat ion tha t the y m a y have ha rbore d re ta lia

tory m otive s doe s not e sta blish a ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t. Se e W ood v . Yordy , 753 F.3d 899, 904–05 (9th C ir. 2014); Hanse n v . Unite d State s , 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th C ir. 1993) (pe r c uriam ); s e e also Sc ott v . Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. C t. 1769, 1776, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007). Se c ond, e ve n a ssum ing tha t C am p a gna a dde d c e rta i n fa c ts whe n he re vise d his R ule s Viola

tion R e port (R

VR ) re ga rding the podium

inc i de nt, the re wa s no indic a tion tha

t the a ddition of those

fa c ts ha rm e d B arno or would de te r “ ‘ a pe rson of ordina ry firm n e ss from future First Am e ndm e n t a c t ivitie s.’ ” W a tison v . C

arte r , 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th C ir. 2012). Thefa c ts a t issue we re im

m ate ria l to the grav am e n of the R

VR (that B a rno ha d disobe y e d a

n orde r), whic h c onve y e d the grav ity an d substa

nc e of his viola

tion without the

purporte d ly -a dde d fa c ts. Se e id. Third, whileB arno pre se nte d som e e vide nc e that W oods ha d thre ate n e d him with fa lse disc iplina

ry c h a rge s a nd tha t C am pa gna ha d thre ate ne d tha

t Pa dilla would im pose the m axim

um punishm e nt for thosefa lse c ha rge s, no re a sona

ble jury
c ould be l ie ve tha

t e v i de nc e be c a

use it “ is bla

ta ntly c ontra dic te d by

the re c ord.” Sc ott , 550 U.S. a

t 380, 127 S. C t. at 1776. M ore ove r, the re port tha t W oods
e ve ntua lly

dra fte d did not c o nta in fa l se c ha rge s. Sum

m ary judgm e nt wa s
a ppropria te . 3The distric t c ourt a l so did not err in e nte ring sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of C am p a g na on C l a im s 2, 4, a

nd 6. W ith re ga

rd to C la im s 2 a

nd 4, B arno pre se nte d
no e vide n c e tha

t his pre dic a t e c onduc t — c o m m e n ting on a

n offic e r’ s a

p pe aranc e
and a ssisting a

fe llow inm a te to file grie va nc e s — wa s prote c t e d by

the First Am e ndm e nt. S

e e Shaw v . Murphy , 532 U.S. 223, 231 & n.3, 121 S. C t. 1475, 1480 & n.3, 149 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2001); c f. J one s v . W illiams , 791 F.3d 1023, 1035–36 (9th C ir. 2015). As to C la im 6, the m e re c onc l usory

a sse rtions in B arno’ s ve rifie d
c om pla i nt a nd de c la ra tions tha

t he wa s house d

with inc o m

p atible inm ate s did not
e sta blish a ge nuine disputeof m a te ria l fa c t in tha t re g ard. Se eHanse n , 7 F.3d a t 138; se e also C a l. C ode R e g s. tit. 15, § 3269(b), (c ), (e ). Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso prope rly e nte re d in fa

vor of De fe nda

n t Kuste r on C l a im 5 be c a u se the re wa s no e vide nc e tha t Kuste r kne w of B arno’ s history of filing grie va

nc e s, le t a l one tha t Kuste r a pprove d a housing tra

nsfe r be c a

use of tha t history
. Se e Mc C

ollum , 647 F.3d a

t 882; Pratt , 65 F.3d a

t 808. Ne ithe r suspic ious tim ing 6 nor Kuste r’ s supe rvisory sta t us 7 am ounts to e vide n c e of a re ta lia tory
m otive
.

6 Se e Pratt , 65 F.3d a

t 808. 7 Se e Tay lor v . List , 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th C i r. 1989). 4Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in dismi ssing B arno’ s C la im 3 without

pre j udic e on the ground tha

t he fa ile d to e xha

ust a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 1997e (a ); Fordle y , 18 F.4th a

t 351. B arno doe s not dispute that his prison grie va nc e s a nd a ppe a ls om itte d C la im 3. Se e Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba

nc ). W e re

je c t B arno’ s c o nc l usory

a sse rtion tha

t
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s we re una

va ila ble , 8 whic h

is both unsupporte d a

nd be lie d by his suc c e ssful e xha

ustion of a

num be r of othe r re ta lia

tion c la i m s during the
sam e pe riod. AFFIRM E D.

8 C f. Ross v . Blak

e , 578 U.S. 632, 643–44, 136 S. C t. 1850, 1859–60, 195 L. Ed. 2d 117 (2016). 5