Case Name: David B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CRUTCHFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 362 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 08-16482
Parties: David B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CRUTCHFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 590–591

Head Matter:
David B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. CRUTCHFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16482.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner David B. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants fired him from his prison job and disciplined him in retaliation for his grievance activity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the defendants' conduct was based on retaliatory motive, rather than legitimate peno-logical goals. See id. at 1288-89 (setting forth requirements of retaliation claim and noting that the "plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Johnson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.