NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
PHILIP JAC KSON LYONS, ) No. 13-16656 ) Pla intiff - Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 3:05-c v-00400-JC M -VPC

) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) JAY B AR TH; SANTER

REN WARD ;) PAUL LUNKW ITZ, ) ) De fe nda nts - Appe lle e s. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M ORR IS, ** Distric t Judge
. Philip Ly o ns, who is in the c ustody of the Ne va d a

De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions, a

ppe a ls from

the judgm e nt issue d by

the distric t c ourt in fa

vor of 

# FIL ED DEC 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble B rian M . M o rris, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na , sitting by

de s igna tion.prison offic e rs Ja y B arth, Sa n te rre n W ard, a

nd Pa ul Lunkwitz

(c olle c tive ly

“ the Offic e rs” ). The judgm e nt wa s issue d a fte r a jury ve rdic t on Ly o n’ s 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 c la im s a ga inst theOffic e rs. The jury found in the i r favor on Ly ons’
a sse rtion tha

t the y ha d viola te d his fre e spe e c h rights under the First Am e n dm e nt to the Unite d State s C o nstitution by re ta lia ting a ga inst him . W e a ffirm
. (1) Ly ons first a sse rts tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion 1 whe n it lim ite d te stim ony re ga

rding his c la im that the Offic e rs ha d re ta lia te d a ga inst him
a fte r he e xe rc ise d his First Am e ndm e n t rights by filing a n e m e rge n c y

grie v anc e
and de m anding a

writte n re sponse to tha

t re que st. 2 W e a gre e with Ly o ns tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d to thee xte n t tha t it sugge ste d

tha t a ll te stim ony

a bout a ny use of forc e wa s irre le va

nt. Tha t le ave s the que stion of whe the r Ly ons suffe re d pre judic e
a s a re sult. Se e Fe d. R . C i v. P. 61; Fe d. R . Evid. 103(a); Obre y v . J ohnson , 400 F.3d 691, 699 (9th C ir. 2005). 3 On the re c ord be fore us, we are satisfie d tha t

1 Se e Unite d State

s v . 4.85 Ac re

s of Land , 546 F.3d 613, 617 (9th C ir. 2008); se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ).
2 Se e Rhode

s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 & n.11 (9th C ir. 2005) (listing the

e l e m e nts of a

re ta l iation c la i m ). 3 Our c a se la

w a ppe ars to be in c onflic t ove r whe the r re ve rsa l follows when the v e rdic t wa s m ore proba b ly tha n not untainte d or whe n the ve rdic t wa s m ore proba b ly tha n not ta inte d. C

ompare Mic rosoft C

orp. v . Motorola, Inc
. , 795 F.3d

(c ontinue d...) 2Ly ons wa s not pre judic e d. The distric t c ourt did not, in fa c t, strikeor e xc lude
e vide nc e tha

t ha d a lre a dy

be e n he ard re ga

rding the re a sons for a

nd fa c t of his
re m ova l from

his c e ll. M ore im

porta ntly , e vide n c e on tha

t subje c t c am e in la

te r from both Ly ons a

nd from his c e llm ate -witne s s, who a lso te s tifie d a bout the Offic e rs’ a c tions in re m oving Ly ons from the c e l l. In a d dition, a

n offic e r te stifie d
a bout theste p s he took to re m ove Ly ons a n d his re a s ons for doing so. 4 In short, it is m o re proba

ble tha n not tha t the jury would ha ve re a c h e d the sam e ve rdic t with or without the

c ourt’ s som e what ove rbroa d sta t e m e nt. (2) Ly ons ne x t a sse rts tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d whe n it pre ve nte d him from c a lling a witne ss for his c a se -in-c hie f. W e disa gre e . In fa c t, Ly ons’ c ounse l
ra ise d the issue in the m idst of thetria l, but ha d not ta ke n ste ps to ha

v e the witne ss
ava ila ble . He c om

p la ine d tha

t opposing pa

rtie s (the Offic e rs) ha d not m a de the witne s s a va ila ble . Whe n the c ourt a ske d why the burde n would beupon the opposing pa

rtie s, c ounse l withdre w his c om p la int. W e pe rc e ive no a

buse of disc re tion. Se e M

orris v . Slappy , 461 U.S. 1, 11–12, 103 S. Ct. 1610, 1616, 75 L.

3 (...c ontinue d) 1024, 1052 (9th C ir. 2015), w ith W ilk e rson v . W

he e le r , 772 F.3d 834, 838 (9th C ir. 2014). In a

ny e ve nt, the re sults he re would be the sa m e on e i the r te s t, so we ne e d not re solve any

c onflic t. Se e Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1119, n.11 (9th C ir. 2012).
4 Se e Hill v . Rolle ri , 615 F.2d 886, 890 (9th C ir. 1980). 3Ed. 2d 610 (1983); Unite d State s v . Garre tt , 179 F.3d 1143, 1144–45 (9th C ir. 1999) (e n ba

nc ). (3) Ly ons ne x t a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it inform e d the jury tha t " a prisone r doe s not ha

ve a c onstitutiona

l right to a

pa rtic ula r grie v anc e proc e d ure ," and tha

t the re fore , a

n offic e r m ay

not be individually

lia ble unde r § 1983 ba se d on " the m e re de nia l of a grie va nc e be c a u se inm at e s ha

ve no le gitim ate c la im of e ntitle m e n t to a grie va nc e proc e dure ." Those are a c c urate sta te m e nts of Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt la w, a nd re fe r to the due proc e ss rights of prisone rs. Se e Ramire

z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C ir. 2003); Mann v
. Adams , 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th C ir. 1988) (pe r c uriam ). B ut a bse nt furthe r e xpla nation the y

we re not a c c urate sta

te m e nts of thela

w to be a p plie d in this First Am e ndm e nt c a se . Thus, those jury instruc tions we re e rrone o us in tha t the y pre s e nte d the jury with ina pplic a ble and pote ntia lly

m isle a ding la

w. W e do not
re ve rse , howe ve r, be c a

use the e rror did not pre

judic e Ly ons. Se e Gantt v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 717 F.3d 702, 707 (9th C ir. 2013). Thejury a p pe ars to ha

ve c re dite d the O ffic e rs' te s tim ony

ove r Ly ons' so we do not be lie ve tha t the ve rdic t would have be e n diffe re nt without the se instruc tions. (4) Ly ons fina lly

argue s tha

t we m ust re ve rse be c a

use the distric t

c ourt
e rre d in giving c e rta in instruc tions re ga rding the “ a dve rse a c tion” e le m e nt of a 4re ta lia

tion c la im
. Rhode

s , 408 F.3d a

t 567. W e do not a gre e . Ly o ns did not obje c t to the instruc tions in que stion. The re fore , we re vie w the m for pla in e rror. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 51(d)(2); C

.B. v . C i ty of Sonora , 769 F.3d 1005, 1018 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ), c e rt. de nie d

__ U.S.__ , 135 S. C t. 1482, 191 L. Ed. 2d 371 (2015). And to obta in re lie f in this c i vil c a se , Ly ons m ust show mo re tha

n a m ista ke . He m ust point to a n e rror that a c tua lly

re a c he s “ ‘ the pinna c le of fa ult.’ ” H e mmings v
. Tidy man’s Inc
. , 285 F.3d 1174, 1193 (9th C ir. 2002); se e also C .B. , 769 F.3d a

t 1018. Tha

t is a rara av i

s . Se e He mmings , 185 F.3d a t 1193. This c a se is not. Ly ons c o m

pla i ns a bout a n instruc tion tha

t inform e d the jury that a

n a dve rse
a c tion m ust be “ c le arly a dve rse .” He sa y s tha t the c a se la

w provide s tha

t it m ust be
a dve rse and tha

t the c ourt e rre d whe n it a dde d the a dve rb “ c l e arly
. ” W e a gre e tha t while the fa c ts of som e c a s e s do show c l e ar a dve rsity , 5 we have m e re ly he ld tha t the a c tion m

ust be a dve rse , not tha

t it m ust be c le a

rly so. 6 W e se e no re a son to
m uddy the wate rs by

a dding tha

t a dve rb. Pe rha

ps we c ould a lso hold tha t the e rror wa s obvious, although tha t is som e what dubious, e spe c ia lly in light of the fa c t tha

t the i nstruc tion in que stion wa s spe c ific a l ly disc usse d

at c onfe re nc e and Ly ons’

5 Se e , e .g. , Austin v . Te rhune , 367 F.3d 1167, 1170–71 (9th C ir. 2004); Bruc e v . Ylst , 351 F.3d 1283, 1288–89 (9th C ir. 2003).

6 Se e Rhode

s , 408 F.3d a

t 567. 5c ounse l e xpre ssly a gre e d to it. B ut, e v e n

a ssum i ng tha

t it wa s obvious, we c annot
sa y tha t it a ffe c te d Ly ons’ substa ntia l rights. The

a d ve rb itse lf a dds little

m ore tha n an unde rsc ore to the ide a tha t the Offic e rs’ a lle ge d a c tions ha d to be e nough to
c hill a pe rson of ordina

ry firm ne ss a nd c ould not bea

m e re e idolon. He re , howe v e r, if Ly ons’ e v ide nc e we re be lie v e d by the jury , the a d

ve rse nature of the
a c tion wa s c e rta i nly

c le ar. At the ve ry

le a st, we m

ust sa y tha t the e rror did not
re a c h tha t pinna c le of fa

ult tha t c a lls for a

re ve rsa l on c ivil-pla i n-e rror re vie w. Ly ons goe s on to c om

pla in a bout thepa

rt of a n instruc tion whic h indic ate s that prisone rs “ m ay be re quire d to tole ra t e m o re ” tha n non-prisone rs be fore an
a c tion by the a ut horitie s would bec onside re d a d v e rse
— c hilling. B ut the ve ry sta tus of be ing a

prisone r ne c e ssa

rily m e ans tha

t just a s the rights the m se lve s a re lim ite d, 7 a c tions ta

ke n whic h m ight se e m

c h illing to non-prisone

rs a re m uc h m ore routine (and not c hilling) to a prisone r of ordina

ry firm ne ss. He re , for e x am

ple , if the O ffic e rs a

re be lie ve d, Ly ons ha d to be re m ove d from his c e ll for a tim e in orde r to a s sure a

prope r c onside ra tion of his grieva nc e . 8 Ne c e ssa

ry re m ova l proc e dure s
are n ot ne c e ssa

rily ple a sa nt. Ye t, in prison the

y m ay we ll not bec h illing—

just a

7 Se e Turne r v . Safle

y , 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct . 2254, 2261–62, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987); J

one s v . W illiams , 791 F.3d 1023, 1035 (9th C ir. 2015). 8 If the y w e re not be lie ve d , it is highly unlike ly tha t the jury would ha ve found in the ir favor. 6norm a l wa

y of bringing a

prisone r from one pla c e (a c e ll) to a nothe r pla c e (an offic e ). Thus, we se e no e rror, m uc h le ss a pla i n e rror, an d e ve n le ss a n e rror that
re a c he s the pinna c le
. AFFIRM ED.

7