Case Name: Tobias A. FRANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derrick SCHULTZ, Correctional Counselor, individually and in official capacity and R. Byrd, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-14
Citations: 624 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 14-55890
Parties: Tobias A. FRANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derrick SCHULTZ, Correctional Counselor, individually and in official capacity and R. Byrd, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
Tobias A. FRANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derrick SCHULTZ, Correctional Counselor, individually and in official capacity and R. Byrd, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, individually and in official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-55890.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
Tobias A. Frank, Fairton, NJ, pro se.
David Pinchas, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Tobias A. Frank appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations! We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Frank's First Amendment retaliation claim because Frank failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Schultz took an adverse action against Frank in retaliation for his allegedly protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269-71 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context, and noting that "a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant's conduct" (citation omitted)).
Frank's motion for judgment, filed on September 28, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We address Frank's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim in a concurrently filed opinion.