Opinion ID: 727785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliation of Prison Officials

Text: 4 Prisoners have a First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for participating in protected speech activities including the right to established prison grievance procedures. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 & n. 4 (9th Cir.1995); Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir.1995). A prisoner suing under section 1983 must [show] that he was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving order and discipline. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985)). 5 At trial, Scott set out to prove that prison officials retaliated against him for filing prison grievances by: (1) reducing his payable work hours; (2) issuing a false counseling memorandum alleging Scott had threatened prison officials; and (3) filing a false rules violation report. The district court found that Scott failed to meet his burden of showing that the defendants' actions did not advance legitimate penological goals. The district court's factual findings, which were based in part on credibility determinations, are not clearly erroneous. 6 First, the court found that the evidence supported the defendants' claim that Scott's payable work hours were reduced to reflect the California Department of Corrections (CDC) policy that inmates receive monetary compensation for hours actually worked. See Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532. The court based its findings on the testimony of the officers as well as the CDC regulations themselves. Second, the court found that there was some evidence to support the two disciplinary reports and, further, that they served the legitimate penological purpose of maintaining prison discipline. See Barnett, 31 F.3d at 816; Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532. In so concluding, the district court relied upon the testimony of the officers as well as Scott's own admissions regarding his conduct on the relevant occasions. We find no error in the district court's factual findings or its legal conclusions. See Brooker, 947 F.2d at 415; Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1087.