Court Opinion

ID: 2676333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-05-29 21:00:33.803916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:00.549639
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAY 29 2014

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD,                             No. 13-15163

               Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00172-ROS

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
M. ROBINSON, Correctional Officer; et
al.,

               Defendants - Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                     Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 13, 2014**

Before:        CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       California state prisoner Gregory Lynn Norwood appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

prison officials confiscated his property in retaliation for filing a grievance. We

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry,

584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Norwood

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the confiscation of

his property was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See id.

at 1269 (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v.

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (deference should be afforded to

prison officials in evaluating proffered “legitimate penological” goals); see also

Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.

2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative

evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

      Norwood’s contention that the applicable prison regulation requiring

confiscation of his property was “illegal” is unpersuasive.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     13-15163