T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2)(C ). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K A V I N M A U RI CE RH O D ES, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M . RO BI N SO N ; RO N BLEV I N S; SA RA M AL ONE ; R &R OF F I C E R ; R &R SERG EA N T; O M BU D SM A N ; C. N ELSO N ; CO RRECTI O N A L O FFI CER; V . PA ZO , Co rr e c t i o n a l O f f i c e r ; B. J ON E S , S e r g e a n t ; R OB E R T S ON , S er geant ; J. T ID W E L L , C orre ct i on al O f f i c e r ; A . L O P E Z , F a c i l i ty C apt a i n; H U E B N E R , L ie u te n a n t, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16363 D C N o. C V 02- 5018 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J une 15, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED SEP 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

B ef ore: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A S H IM A , and B E A , C i rc ui tJudg es K a v in R h o d e s ( “R h o d e s ” ) is ap r is o n e rin c a r c e r a te d in th e C a lif o rn iaS ta te P ri son sys t em . H e a l l eges thatw hi l e apri soner a tthe C al i forni a C orre ct i on al Inst i tut i on i n T ehac hapi , C al i forni a, se vera l gu ar ds re peat edl y i l l egal l y r et al i at ed a g a in s t h im f

o re x e r c is in g h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to f ile a d m in is tr a tiv e in m a te g r ie v a n c e s , g r a n d ju ry c o m p la in ts , a n d th is f e d e r a l c iv il r ig h ts la w s u it. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt in itia llyg r a n te d d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . O n ap p e a l, w e r e ve r s e d, hol di ng tha tR hode s ha d a l l e ge d f a c t s s uf f i c i e ntt o s t a t e ac l a i m f

or F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n . Se e R hode s v . R obi ns on (“R ho des I ” ) , 408 F . 3d 559 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). O n rem and, R ho des a m ended h i s c om pl ai ntt o al l ege a dd i t i on al c la im s a r is in g f

r o m a d d itio n a l r e ta lia tio n d e f e n d a n ts a lle g e d lyin f

lic te d o n h im in r e s p o n s e to th e in itia l f

ilin g o f th is la w s u it. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s u a s p o n te di sm i ss ed c l a i m s thi rt e e n thr ough thi rty - thr e e of R hode s ’ s e c ond a m e nde d c om pl a i nt ( “ S A C ” ) , a nd gr a nt e d de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m aryj udgm e nton s e ve r a l of R h o d es’ o th er cl ai m s. A j u ry fo u n d fo r d efen d an t s as t o al l rem ai n i n g cl ai m s. R hode s t i m e l y appe a l e d. I n thi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on, w e a ddr e s s , a nd af fi rm , the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng s on sum m ary j ud gm ent , as w el l as i t s pre tri alW e a ddr e s s R hode s ’ appe a l of the di s m i s s a l of

c l a i m s thi rt e e n thr ough 1 thi rty - thr e e i n hi s S A C i n a n opi ni on f i l e d c onc urr e nt l yw i th thi s di s pos i t i on. 3 rul i ng s, tri al rul i ng s, and i nstruct i on s t o the j ury. T he di stri ctcourthad 1 j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . §§ 1331 a nd 1342. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . I. S u m m ar y Ju d gm e n t R u l i n gs W e r ej ec tR ho des’ chal l enge t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j u d g m en tt o d efen d an t s N el so n , B l ev i n s, L o p ez, an d H u eb n er o n h i s F i rst A m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m s . A c l a i m of r e t a l i a t i on a ga i ns tapr i s one rf orthe e x e r c is e o f

h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts h a s f iv e e le m e n ts : “( 1 ) A n a s s e rtio n th a t a st at e a ct or t oo k som e a dv er se ac t i on agai nstan i nm at e ( 2) because of (3) that p ri so n er’ s p ro t ect ed co n d u ct , an d th atsu ch act i o n (4 ) ch i l l ed th e i n m at e’ s ex erci se of hi s F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s, and (5) the ac t i on di d n otre as on abl y a dv ance a l egi t i m at e c orre ct i on al go al . ” R h o des I, 40 8 F . 3d at56 7-68 (f oo tno t e om i tt ed). W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t to N e ls o n o n th is cl ai m because R ho des f ai l ed t o p roff

erfa ct s f rom w hi ch a r ea sonabl e tri erof fa ct c oul d c onc l ude tha tN e l s on t ook the a l l e ge dl yr e t a l i a t orya c t i on be c aus e of R ho des’ exer ci se of hi s F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s. N el son st at ed thathe w as un aw ar e thatR ho des had fi l ed a gri evance i n N ov em ber 200 0, w hen h e c on fi sc at ed4

R hode s ’ C D pl a y e ron M a y 3, 2001. R hode s of f e r e d no e vi de nc e c ontr a di c t i ng th is a s s e rtio n . W e a ls o a f

f irm th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t to B le v in s o n th is c la im be c aus e R hode s of

f e r e d no e vi de nc e t o c ontr a di c tB l e vi ns ’ c ont e nt i on tha tby co n fisc atin g R h o d es ’ C D s a n d len s c lean er , h e w as “rea so n ab ly ad v an c[ in g ] a l egi t i m at e c orre ct i on al go al , ” by e nforci ng O pera t i on P roce du re #2 06 , w hi ch p r o h ib its in m a te s f

r o m o w n in g C D s if

th e yd o n o t p o s s e s s aC D p la y e r . I d. a t 5 6 8 . I t is u n c o n tr o v e rte d th a t R h o d e s d id n o t p o s s e s s aC D p la y e r . R ho des’ cont ent i on s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g rant i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t to L o p e z o n R h o d e s ’ c la im o f F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n lik e w is e f a il. R hode s f i r s ta r gue s tha tL ope z r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns thi m byr e f us i ng t o r e s pond p e r s o n a llyto h is c o m p la in ts . N e x t, h e c o n te n d s th a t L o p e z r e ta lia te d a g a in s t h im b y r ef u sin g to re tu rn to h im a c o p y o f h is N o v em b er2 0 0 0 g riev an ce . L o p ez ’s f a i l ur e pe r s ona l l y t o a ddr e s s R hode s c om pl a i nt s doe s notc ons t i tut e r e t a l i a t i on. L op ez perm i tt ed the i nm at e app ea l s proce ss t o add re ss R ho des’ com pl ai nt s, w hi ch w er e i n fac tful l y proce ss ed throu gh the i nm at e gri evance s ys t em i n acc ordance w i th appl i c abl e r e gul a t i ons . S i m i l a r l y , a s the di s tr i c tc ourtnot e d, “ [ e ] ve n a s s um i ng d e f e n d a n t L o p e z f

a ile d to r e tu rn th e d o c u m e n ta rye v id e n c e a s r e q u e s te d , th is c o n d u c t w a s n o t a n a d v e r s e a c tio n s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt ar e ta lia tio n c la im ,”5

b e c au s e it d id n o t c h ill R h o d e s ’ e x e r c is e o f h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . Se e i d. at 568 . R ho des’ N ov em ber 200 0 g ri evance w as ful l y proce ss ed, and h i s s peec h w as i n no w a y c hi l l e d by L ope z ’ s f a i l ur e t o r e turn ac opy of i tt o hi m . W e a f

f i rm the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to L o p e z o n th is c la im . W e nextaf

fi rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o H uebn er , b u t o n d if

f e r e n t g r o u n d s . R h o d e s is c o rr e c t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m is c o n s tru e d h is al l egat i on agai nstH uebn er . T he di stri ctcourtm i st akenl y bel i eved thatR ho des w as com pl ai ni ng thatH uebn erfa i l ed t o p roce ss a c op y of an app ea l fr om an earl i er s u b m itte d g r ie v a n c e , w h e n R h o d e s a c tu a llya lle g e d th a t H u e b n e rh a d f a ile d to pr oc e s s the or i gi na l of

ane w gr i e va nc e . N one the l e s s , thi s c l a i m c a nnots urvi ve s um m a ry j udgm e nt , be c aus e R hode s di d notof f e ra nye vi de nc e f

r om w hi c h a re as on abl e tri erof fa ctcoul d con cl ud e thatH ueber l ostor destroye d the new gri evance i n ret al i at i on for f i l i ng earl i ergri evances . R ho des s ub m i tt ed no evi dence t o p r o v e h i s a l l e g a t i o n s o f wr o n g d o i n g b yHu e b n e r . I n f a c t , R h o d e s ’ o wn decl ar at i on st at es thatH uebn erac tual l y off er ed t o p rot ec thi m fr om further r e ta lia tio n . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so co rrect l y d i sreg ard ed R h o d es’ m o t i o n fo r cro sss um m a ry j udgm e ntbe c aus e i tdi d not“ s t a t e w i th pa rt i c ul a r i tythe gr ounds f or s e e k in g th e o r d e r ” a s r e q u ir e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 7 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) .6

D e s pi t e c apt i oni ng the m ot i on a s one f orc r os s - s um m a ryj udgm e nt , R hode s di d not p r o v id e a n y a r g u m e n t o re v id e n c e s u p p o rtin g s u c h am o tio n . W e a ls o r e

je c t R h o d e s ’ a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to p r o v id e h im w i th p ro p er n o t i ce o f th e st an d ard fo r su m m ary j u d g m en tas req u i red b y R an d v. R ow land , 15 4 F . 3d 95 2, 96 0-61 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( en banc). T he di stri ctcourt pr ovi de d not i c e t o R hode s of the s t a nda r d f

ors um m a ryj udgm e nti n i t s S e c ond Inform at i on O rderand S um m ary Jud gm entN ot i ce , fi l ed on M ay17 , 20 02 , at pa r a gr aph thr e e . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s not i c e c om pl i e s w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of R and because i ti s w ri tt en i n “ ordi nary , un ders t andabl e l angu age, ” des cr i bes R hode s ’ r i ghtt o f

i l e e vi de nc e i n oppos i t i on t o de f e nda nt s ’ s um m a ryj udgm e nt m o ti o n , ex p lain s th at h is fa il u re to re sp o n d w il l res u ltin th e o p p o sin g p ar ty’s f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons be i ng t a ke n a s true , a nd m a yr e s ul ti n the e ntryof j udgm e nt a g a in s t h im . I

d. R hode s ’ a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtvi ol a t e d the l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne b y m a k in g f

a c tu a l f in d in g s c o n tr a ryto th e s ta te m e n t o f f a c ts in o u rd e c is io n in R ho des I i s m er i t l es s. F or the pu rposes of R h o des I, w e a cc ept ed as true a l l fa ctual al l egat i on s c on t ai ned i n R ho des’ com pl ai nt , because the ca se ca m e t o u s on app ea l f r o m ad is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im . See F e d . R . C iv . P r o c . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . R h o des I, there fore , m ade no factual det erm i nat i on s. O n rem and, the ca se w as7

before the di stri ctcourti n a verydi ff er entprocedural po sture, and the di stri ctcourt w a s c o rr e c t to ap p lyth e s ta n d a r d f o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t. II. P r e t r i alR u l i n gs N e ith e rth e d is tr ic t ju d g e n o rth e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ab u s e d h is d is c r e tio n in decl i ni ng t o rec use them se l ves f rom R ho des’ ca se . T he on l y e vi dence of bi as R ho des c i t es ar e dec i si on s by the j ud ges w i th w hi ch he di sa gree s; ho w ever , “‘ju d ic ia l ru lin g s a lo n e a lm o s t n e v e rc o n s titu te av a lidb a s is f o rab ia s o rp a rtia lity m ot i on . ’ ” Fo c u s Me d ia , I n c ., v . N a t’ l B r o a d. C o ., I

n c . ( I n r e Fo c u s Me d ia , I

n c .) , 378 F . 3d 916, 930 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng L i tek y v . U ni ted Stat es , 510 U . S . 540, 55 5 (19 94 )) . N or di d the di stri ctcourtabuse i t s di sc re t i on by re fusi ng t o app oi ntcoun se l to a s s is t R h o d e s u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a c te d w e ll w ith in its di s c r e t i on w he n i tf

ound tha te xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s w a rr a nt i ng appoi ntm e ntof c o u n s e l w e r e n o t p r e s e n t in th is c a s e . R h o d e s o b v io u s lyp o s s e s s e s th e ab ility c l e a r l y t o a rt i c ul a t e hi s c a s e , ha vi ng a l r e a dyw on one appe a l be f or e us i n R h o des I. See W i lborn v . Es c alde r on , 78 9 F . 2d 13 28 , 13 31 (9th C i r. 19 86 ). R hode s ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtvi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s by f a ilin g to r e s p o n d to h is r e q u e s t to s a n c tio n B le v in s f o rp e r ju r in g h im s e lf

is8

m er i t l es s. R ho des’ du e proces s r i gh t s w er e notvi ol at ed because the re cord in d ic a te s th a t h e n e v e rm a d e s u c h ar e q u e s t. L ik e w is e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e c lin e d to in f o rm th e U .S . A tto rn e y th a t R h o d e s w is h e d to f ile a n o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e c la im a g a in s t d e f

e n d a n ts . A lth o u g h th e r e is s o m e au th o r ityto s u p p o rt th e n o tio n th a t in c e rta in c a s e s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a ym a k e s u c h ar e f e rr a l s u a s

p o n te , i ti s not r e q u ir e d to d o s o a t alitig a n t’s r e q u e s t. See U ni ted Stat es ex . re l. Sa vage v. A rn o ld , 4 0 3 F . S u p p . 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 ( E .D . P a . 1 9 7 5 ) . O n lyth e U .S . A tto rn e yc a n in itia te c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g s in f e d e r a l c o u rt, a n d R h o d e s w a s f r e e to c o n ta c t h im d ir e c tly . Se e Ke e n a n v . Mc G r a th , 3 2 8 F .2 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 1 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 6 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . I I I . T r i alR u l i n gs T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d R hode s ’ m ot i on re qu es t i ng the i ss uance of fi ve subp oenas duces t ec um . B ec ause the m ot i on w as m ade a ft erthe di stri ctcourti ss ued i t s pre tri al order, i tconst i tut ed a r equestfor an am endm entt o the pretri al order, and R ho des bore the bu rden of dem on stra t i ng that denyi ng i tw ou l d res ul ti n “ m ani fe sti nj ust i ce . ” G alda m ezv. P ot ter , 415 F . 3d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . R h o d e s o f f e r e d n o e x p la n a tio n a s to h o w d e n y in g h is m ot i on w oul d r e s ul ti n m a ni f e s ti nj us t i c e , a nd the r e f

or e f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

yhi s bur de n.9

W e a l s o r e

j e c tR hode s ’ c ha l l e nge s t o va r i ous e vi de nt i aryrul i ngs bythe d is tr ic t c o u rt. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s c o rr e c t in r e f u s in g to a d m it d o c u m e n ts in to evi dence fr om the K ern C ou nty grand j ury i n o rdert o p rove the truth o f the m att er a s s e rte d in th e h e a r s a y p o rtio n s o f th e d o c u m e n ts . See F e d. R . E vi d. 807. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of R ho des’ re qu es tthatdefe nd antw i tness es be excl ud ed f r o m th e c o u rtr o o m a ls o c o m p lie d w ith th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f E v id e n c e . See Fe d . R. E vi d. 61 5(1) (A l tho ug h the rul e autho ri ze s adi stri ctcourtt o excl ud e w i tness es fr om the courtroom , i t“ do es no tautho ri ze exclusi on of . . . a party w ho i s anatural pe r s on. ” ) . L i ke w i s e , the di s tr i c tc ourta c t e d pr ope r l yi n a dm i tt i ng adupl i c a t e c opy of ac e l l - s e a r c h l og i nt o e vi de nc e be c aus e R hode s f a i l e d t o r a i s e a“ ge nui ne que s t i on . . . a s t o the authe nt i c i ty of the or i gi na l , ” a nd m e r e l ya s s e rt e d w i thout supp ortthati tw as “ an ob vi ou s f orged and fabri ca t ed copy. ” See F e d. R . E vi d. 1003. T he di s tr i c tc ourtw a s a l s o w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on t o hol d tha tN e l s on’ s s t a tus a s ade f e nda nti n apr i ors ui tbr oughtbyR hode s w a s notr e l e va ntf ori m pe a c hm e nt p u rp o s e s . See F e d. R . E vi d. 607. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrbyr e f us i ng t o t a ke j ud i ci al no t i ce of Can el l v. L i gh tner , 14 3 F . 3d 12 10 (9th C i r. 19 98 ), as R ho des re qu es t ed. A courtm ayno t(and need no t ) t ake j ud i ci al no t i ce of j ud i ci al p r e c e d e n t. See F ed. R . E vi d. 20 1(a) .10

R h o d es al so ap p eal s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s en try o f zero d am ag es ag ai n st d e f e n d a n t B . J o n e s , a s to w h o m R h o d e s h a d b e e n g r a n te d ad e f au lt ju d g m e n t. R ho des w as gi ven n ot i ce thathe w ou l d b e r equi re d t o p rovi de evi dence e s t ab l i s h i n g th a tB. J o n e s e x i s t s . G i v e n th a tRh o d e s o f f e r e d n o e v i d e n c e o f

B. J one s ’ e xi s t e nc e , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o e nt e rade f aul tj udgm e ntw i thout d a m a g e s w a s n o t e rr o n e o u s . I V. J ur y I ns t r uc t i o ns F i nal l y, R ho des’ chal l enges t o the j ury i nstruct i on s gi ven b y the di stri ct c ourta l s o f

a i l . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yde ni e d R hode s ’ r e que s tf oras pol i a t i on o f e v id e n c e in s tru c tio n , b a s e d o n d e f e n d a n ts ’ d e s tru c tio n o f

R h o d e s ’ C D p la y e r . R hode s w a s note nt i t l e d t o a n a dve r s e i nf e r e nc e due t o s pol i a t i on be c aus e he p r o v id e d n o p r o o f

th a t th e p a rtyw ith c o n tr o l o v e rth e C D p la y e rh a d ad u tyto p r e s e rv e it a t th e tim e it w a s d e s tr o y e d . See Ida h o P o ta to C o m m ’n v. G & T T erm i na l P ackagi ng, Inc. , 4 2 5 F .3 d 7 0 8 , 7 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e w ill n o t c o n s id e rR h o d e s ’ c h a lle n g e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e f u s a l to in s tru c t th e ju ry o n th e is s u e o f p s y c h o lo g ic a l d a m a g e s . R h o d e s h a s w a iv e d h is r ig h t to c h a lle n g e it b y f a ilin g to m a k e atim e lyo b je c tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. See V oohr i e s -L ars on v . C e s s na A i r c r af t C o. , 241 F . 3d 707, 713 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . F or11

the sa m e r ea son, w e a l so decl i ne t o revi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o g i ve a j ury in s tru c tio n o n R h o d e s ’ o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e c la im . Se e i d. C o nc l us i o n F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , the above port i ons of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt and i t s s um m ary j ud gm entrul i ng s are AF F I RME D.