Opinion ID: 602239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wright's retaliation claim

Text: 4 We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Perez v. Curcio, 841 F.2d 255, 257 (9th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is only appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the district court correctly applied the substantive law. Id. The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Allen v. Scribner, 812 F.2d 426, 430 (9th Cir.) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513 (1986)), amended on other grounds, 828 F.2d 1445 (9th Cir.1987). The judge's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Allen, 812 F.2d at 430. 5 To survive a motion for summary judgment on a retaliation claim, a prisoner must do more than simply allege retaliation due to his exercise of constitutional rights. He must also allege that the prison's retaliatory action did not advance a legitimate penological goal, or was not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985). 6 Wright introduced circumstantial evidence of the defendants' retaliatory motive. He presented an affidavit from prisoner Robert Stratton which states that on the morning of March 21, defendant Evans summoned Stratton and another prisoner to Evans' office where he questioned the prisoners about Wright's role in the meeting the previous day. Evans told these prisoners that he held Wright responsible for swaying the inmates' vote on the double-bunking issue. [CR 118, Ex. 30]. Wright also contends that another advocate of enforcing the consent decree, Steve Plant, was transferred to another institution at the same time, and that prisoner Albert Owens was placed in segregation on March 21 for possessing a leaflet advocating enforcement of the consent decree. These contentions are supported by affidavits. [CR 118, Ex. 24 (affidavit of Robert McKinney); Ex. 27 (affidavit of Edward Mead); Ex. 20 (affidavit of James Chaney Bey) ]. Furthermore, the close proximity between Wright's protected activity and defendants' action may lead to an inference of retaliatory motive. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 949 (10th Cir.1990) (Smith has supported his allegations of retaliation by the only means available to him--circumstantial evidence ...); McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir.1979) (chronology of events provides support for inference of retaliation). 7 Wright also established that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether or not the prison officials' actions were for a legitimate penological goal, because Wright introduced evidence sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that the penological goals articulated by the prison officials were a pretext for retaliation. Prison officials may not defeat a retaliation claim on summary judgment simply by articulating a justification for the retaliatory action, when there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the action was taken purely in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right. 1 8 The district court thus erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. 9 The district court also erroneously limited Wright's discovery regarding his retaliation claim. Wright sought to discover various documents related to the prison officials' articulated reasons for Wright's segregation and transfer. The magistrate judge ruled that these issues were irrelevant to the issue of retaliatory motive and denied further discovery. The district judge held that regardless of whether plaintiff's requests were relevant, it appears that plaintiff had most of this information already in his possession through documents attached to the motion for summary judgment and those provided directly to plaintiff at the time of his transfer. 10 Documents regarding the prison officials' articulated reasons for Wright's placement in administrative segregation and transfer to another prison are relevant to Wright's retaliation claim. The district court's holding that Wright has most of the requested documents indicates that he does not have all requested documents. Wright should be allowed complete discovery of any information not privileged, or to which defendants have a valid objection, related to the articulated reasons for Wright's segregation and transfer.