Court Opinion

ID: 9374654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:01.094751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.157464
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL EDWARD AGUILAR,                         No. 21-16789

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00009-JGZ-PSOT

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GENE COCA, Correctional Officer IV at
ASPC - Safford/Tonto Unit; ROXANNE
HILL, Deputy Warden at ASPC -
Safford/Tonto Unit; VANCE LARKIN,
Captain, ASPC - Safford; MICHAEL
ENNIS, Captain, ASPC Safford; STACI
IBARRA; KIMBERLY CURRIER,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Arizona state prisoner Michael Edward Aguilar appeals pro se from the

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a

retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213

F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Aguilar’s action because Aguilar failed

to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Coca acted with a retaliatory

motive. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting

forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone is insufficient to

establish retaliatory motive).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Aguilar’s third

amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been

futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th

Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without

leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       21-16789