explaining that “preserving institutional order and discipline” are 2 19-15119 legitimate penological objectives
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “preserving institutional order and discipline” are 2 19-15119 legitimate penological objectives
- “[A] successful retaliation claim requires a finding that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT GONZALEZ SAENZ, No. 19-15119
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05565-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
A. PELAYO, Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert Gonzalez Saenz appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian
*
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).
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Pelayo
on Saenz’s deliberate indifference claim on the basis of qualified immunity
because it would not have been clear to every reasonable prison official that
requiring Saenz to remain outside of his cell and perform his assigned work was
unlawful under the circumstances. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79
(2014) (officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they
violated a right that was clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have
violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently
definite that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have
understood that he was violating it”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Pelayo
on Saenz’s retaliation claim because Saenz failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Pelayo’s alleged conduct did not reasonably advance a
legitimate correctional goal. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.
1995) (“[A] successful retaliation claim requires a finding that the prison
authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional
institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th
Cir. 1994) (explaining that “preserving institutional order and discipline” are
2 19-15119
legitimate penological objectives).
We reject as meritless Saenz’s contentions that the district court ignored
“evidence of document tampering” and improperly relied on “sham declarations.”
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court, see United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990), or matters not specifically and
distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d
983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15119