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 yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 GA BR I EL RUDY CORT EZ , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A T T H E W C A T E ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17507 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 9 -cv -0 3 0 2 1 -E JD 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 N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia E dw a r d J . D a vi l a , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G abr i e l R udy C ort e z , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng due p r o c e s s , e q u a l p r o te c tio n , a n d F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im s in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is 

# FI LED NO V 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17507 2 va l i da t i on a s a n a s s oc i a t e of apr i s on ga ng a nd c onf i ne m e nti n the s e c ur i tyhous i ng u n it ( “S H U ” ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . B ru ce v. Y

l st , 351 F . 3d 1283, 1287 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . W e m a ya f f i rm on a nygr ound s u p p o rte d b y th e r e c o r d . T hom ps on v . P aul , 54 7 F . 3d 10 55 , 10 58 -59 (9th C i r. 2008) . W e a f

f irm in p a rt, r e v e r s e in p a rt, a n d r e m a n d . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton C ort e z ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m r e l a t i ng t o hi s 2008 va l i da t i on a s apr i s on ga ng a s s oc i a t e be c aus e the r e c o r d s h o ws th a tC o rt e z r e c e i v e d n o t i c e a n d a n o p p o rtu n i tyt o p r e s e n th i s v i e ws a nd the r e w a s “ s om e e vi de nc e , ” w i th s uf f i c i e nti ndi c i aof

r e l i abi l i ty , i n s upportof th e d e c is io n . See B ruce , 3 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 - 8 8 . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton C ort ez ’ s e qu al pr ot e c t i on c l a i m be c aus e the pr oc e dur e s c a l l e d f ori n the m e m or a ndum a ti s s ue w e r e r a c i a l l y ne utr a l a nd na rr ow l yt a i l or e d t o a ddr e s s ac om pe l l i ng gove rnm e nt in te r e s t in p r is o n s e c u r ity . Se e J o h n s o n v . Ca lifo rn ia , 543 U . S . 499, 511- 13 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; R ic h a rd

s o n v . R u n n e ls , 5 9 4 F .3 d6 6 6 , 6 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . S um m a ry j udgm e ntw a s pr ope ron C ort e z ’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m tha the ha d ar i ghtt o “ be ni gn a s s oc i a t i on” w i th pe opl e of hi s ow n e thni c gr oup w i thout be i ng s ubj e c t e d t o ar i s k of S H U c onf

i ne m e nton the ba s i s of

s uc h a s s oc i a t i ons because “ the C on st i tut i on [does not ] re cogn i ze [] a genera l i ze d ri gh tof ‘ soci al11- 17507 3 as soci at i on . ’ ” C i t

yof D al las v . S ta n g lin , 49 0 U . S . 19 , 25 (198 9) (a ct i vi ty prot ec t ed by F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ghtof a s s oc i a t i on i nc l ude s “ i nt i m a t e a s s oc i a t i on” a nd “e x p r e s s iv e a s s o c ia tio n ” ) ; Jones v . N . C . P risoners ’ L ab or U

ni on , Inc. , 4 3 3 U . S. 11 9, 13 1 (19 77 ) ( pri son o ff i ci al s m aycurt ai l pri soner’ s a ss oci at i on al ri gh t s i f they c onc l ude s uc h a s s oc i a t i ons “ pos s e s s the l i ke l i hood of di s rupt i on t o pr i s on or de ror s tab ility , o ro th e rw is e in te r f e r e w ith [ ] le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l o b je c tiv e s ” ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng C ort e z ’ s r e que s tf or appo i ntm entof coun se l because C ort ez fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e e xcept i on al c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See T

erre l l v. B re w er , 935 F . 2d 1015, 1017 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( s e tt i ng f o rth s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w a n d lis tin g f

a c to r s to c o n s id e r ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by grant i ng sum m ary j udgm e ntw i thouta l l ow i ng C ort e z f urthe rdi s c ove rybe c aus e C ort e z di d nots how h o w a d d itio n a l d is c o v e ry w o u ld h a v e a f f e c te d th e d is p o s itio n o f

h is c a s e . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (d); B ar ona G r p. of the Capi tan G r ande B and of Mis s i on I ndi ans v . A m . M

gm t. & A m us e m e nt

, I nc . , 84 0 F . 2d 13 94 , 13 99 -140 0 (9th C i r. 1987) ( de ni a l of

ar e que s tf

ora ddi t i ona l di s c ove ryi s pr ope rw he r e the m ovi ng pa rty “ f a i l e d t o e xpl a i n how a ddi t i ona l di s c ove ryw oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d the di sposi t i on of the ca se ”) . H o w ev er , th e d istrict co u rt erre d in g ra n ti n g su m m ary ju d g m en t o n C o rtez ’s11- 17507 4 F i rs tA m endm entre t al i at i on cl ai m w hen i ti m prop er l y c on cl ud ed thatC ort ez c oul d notr e f

ut e tha tde f

e nda nt s ha d l e gi t i m a t e c orr e c t i ona l goa l s f orhi s ga ng val i dat i on . C ort ez prov i ded evi dence t o cre at e agenu i ne di sput e of m at er i al fa ct a s t o i m pr ope rm ot i ve , a nd “ pr i s on of f i c i a l s m a ynotde f

e a tar e t a l i a t i on c l a i m on sum m ary j ud gm entsi m pl y by art i cul at i ng a genera l j ust i fi ca t i on for aneutra l proces s, w hen there i s agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether the ac t i on w as t aken i n ret al i at i on for the exerc i se of a c on st i tut i on al ri gh t . ” B r u c e, 35 1 F . 3d at 12 89 (“ [I f . . . the defendant s abu se d the gang val i dat i on procedure as a c ov eror a rus e t o s i l e nc e a nd puni s h [ the pr i s one r ] be c aus e he f i l e d gr i e va nc e s , the yc a nnot as se rtthat[hi s] val i dat i on se rved a val i d p enol og i ca l pu rpose, even tho ug h h e m ay have a r g u a b lye nde d up w he r e he be l onge d. ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a n d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s o n th is c la im . T h e p a rtie s s h a ll b e a rth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. A FFI R M ED i n pa r t , R EVER SED i n pa r t , a nd R EM A N D ED .