P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50262 Su m m ar y Cal endar RUSS EL L NORM AN OLS TA D, J R Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. JU AN I TAG O N ZAL ES, Par o l e Boa r d M e m be r , RI SSI E O W EN S, Pr e s i di ng O f f i cer; B R YA N C O L L IE R , D i rect or, T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce Pa r o l e D i v i s i o n ; HOW ARD T HRASHER, P a r o l e Co m m i s s i o n ; CHARL ES S H IPM A N , P arol e C om m i ssi on er D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 07- C V

- 667 B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Pl ai nt i f f

- A ppel l antR ussel lN or m an O l st ad, Texas pr i so ner# 39 1985, appeal s t he di sm i ss alof h i s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 co m pl ai nti n w hi c h he al l ege d t hat m e m b e r s o f t h e P a r o le B o a r d(B o a r d ) r e ta lia te da g a in s t h im fo re n g a g in gin l i ti ga ti on . O l stada l l eg ed th a t he w a s d en i ed pa role an drece ive da five ye a r setUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50262

2 o f f unt i lhi s nex tre vi e w be c aus e he f i l e d s ui taga i ns tof

f i c e r s of t he Boa r d who h ad previ ou sl y den i ed h i m parol e. O l s t adha s fai l e d t o b r i e f, a nd t hus ha s a ba ndo ne d, hi s c l ai m t hatt he B o a r d ’ s c o n d u c t v io la te d h is r ig h ts u n d e r th e E xP o s t F a c to C la u s e . S ee Y oh ey v . Co llin s , 9 8 5 F .2d 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). O l s t adc o nt e nds t hatt he def e nda nt s di d notpr e s e nts um m ar y j udg m e nt evi den ce su f

f i ci en tto su pp orttheirp osi t i on . H e a l so c on t en ds t h at he presented a c hr o n o l o g y o f fa c t s wh i c h p l a u s ib l y i n fe r r e d t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t s h a d a r e ta lia to r ym o tiv e fo rth e ira c tio n . H e fu r th e ra s s e r t s th a t r e c o r d s o f h is l i t i ga t i o n a c t ivit i e s w e r e pl ac e d i n hi s pa r o l e f i l e i n v i o l at i o n o f

Boa r d p o l i c y, a nd t h at he rec eived t h e f ive year set - of

f t o pu n i sh hi m f

or sui n g t h e B oard m em bers. O l stad h a s n ot p rov i d ed an y d i rect evi denc e thatthe def end a n ts acted w i th a ret al i ato ry m ot ive, an d h i s c h ronol ogy of even t s, al t h ou gh detai l ed, does not r a is e ap la u s ib l e i n fe r e n c e o f r e ta lia tio n . S eeW o o d s v . S m ith , 60 F. 3d 1161, 11 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) . Ol s t ad ’ s a s s e r t i o n t hatCol l i er, G o nz al e s , a nd Ow e ns i nf l ue nc e d t he l at e rBoa r d m e m be r s i s b as e d s o l e l y o n h i s own be l i e fs a nd percepti on s. H e prof fered n o evi den ce t h at t h ose t h ree w ere personal l y i n volved i n t h e pl acem en tof

t h e l i t i gati on m ater i al s i n hi s f i l e. Thr as he ra nd Sh i pm an w e r e no tna m e d a s de fe nda nt s i n t he f i rst c o m pl ai nt , a nd t he y pr o vi de d l e git i m at e r e as o ns f o rde nyi ng pa r o l e a nd f o rt he f ive y e ars e t - o f

f. The y r e l i e d o n t he fac tt hatO l s t ad ’ s offen se was av i o l e nt c r im in a l a c t in v o lv in g v u ln e r a b le v ic tim s a n d th e u s e o f a w e a p o n a n do n th e ir determ i n ati on t h at t h e am ou n t of t i m e t h at O l st ad h ad served i n pri son w as not suf f i c i enti n l i ght of t he se ver i t y o f hi s of fens e a nd hi s c r i m i nalhi st or y. O l st ad di d no tpr o f

fe ra ny s pe c i f

i c e vi de nc e t o s ho w t hat the five ye ars e t - o f f w as t he r e s ul to f

r e t al i at i o n ra t he rt han t he re s ul tof t he s e m e m be r s ’per c e pt i o n o f t he seri ou sness of

hi s of fen se. Al t ho ugh“ pr i s o ne r s g e ne r al l y e nj o y a c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghto f a c c e s s t o t he cou rts, ” Joh n son v. R od riguez , 110 F . 3d 299 , 310 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) , “ [r] et al i ati onN o. 08- 50262

3 aga i n sta pri soner i s act i on able on l y i f i ti s c ap able o f d e te rr i n g a person of ord i n a ryf

i r m n e s s from f

u rth er ex ercisi n g h i s con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts. ” B i bbs v. Ea rly , 541 F . 3d 267 , 270 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on om i t t e d) . O l s t ad has no t pr o f fe r e d any e vi de nc e t hat t he al l e ge d acts of r e ta lia tio n im p e d e dh is a c c e s s to t h e c o u r ts o rch ille dh is e ffo r ts to litig a te . S ee R od rigu ez , 1 1 0 F .3 da t 3 1 4 . In s u m , O ls ta d h a s fa ile d to p r e s e n t a n a c tio n a b le r e ta lia tio n cla im . B i bbs , 541 F. 3d at270. O l stad con ten d s th a t th e dist ri ct cou rt did n ot all ow h i m ad eq u a te ti m e to c onductdi sc ove r y and gr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm entbe f or e t he def

end a n ts pro vi ded hi m w i t h re spo nse s t o t he r eques t ed di sc ove r y. A distri ctc our tm ay e x e r c is e its “s o u n dd is c r e tio n ” w ith re s p e c t t o d is c o v e r ym a tt e r s . Ki ng v . D oga n , 31 F . 3d344 , 346 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . Aparty opposi n g a sum m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on m us ts ho w ho w a ddit i o nald i scove r y w o ul d d e fe att he s um m ar y j udg m e nt m o tio n . I

d. O l st ad has nei t her i dent i f i ed s pec i f

i c i nf or m at i on t hatw oul d have been obtai n e d as a resul tof di scovery nor s h ow n how an y such i n f orm ati on w oul d have def

eat ed s um m ar y j udgm ent . Th e do c um ent s r eques t ed byO l st ad w ere th ose th a t h e h a dp rep a red a n ds erv edo n th e d efen d a n ts i n h i s p ri or su i t. T h u s , O ls ta dh a s n o t s h o w n a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se eKi ng , 31 F. 3d at346. O l st ad ha s fai l ed to show t h at t h ere i s a genu i n e is su e of m ater i alfact r e g a r d i n g h i s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c ) . Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot e r ri n g r anti n g t h e de fe nda nt s ’m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt . The j udg m e nt o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is , ina ll re s p e c ts , AF F I RMED.