Summary
finding that a defendant's knowledge of a lawsuit filed against him was not enough to demonstrate retaliatory motive when defendant denied a prisoner plaintiff access to the prison law library (citing Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 265 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2001))
Summary of this case from Holmes v. DreesenOpinion
No. 06-15687.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 1, 2007.
Carl Lee Callegari, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Alvin Gittisriboongul, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-02419-FCD/DAD.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Carl Lee Callegari, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of Sandra McDonald, the librarian at Salinas Valley State Prison, in his 42 USC § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Callegari failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether McDonald filed a rule violation report against him, or denied him access to the law library, based on a retaliatory motive, rather than for a legitimate penological goal. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-09 (9th Cir. 1995).