Jess Richard Smith v. Keith Goodenough

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESS RICHARD SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KEITH GOODENOUGH,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-35188

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-05031-SMJ

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Jess Richard Smith appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970

*
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).
FILED

NOV 13 2020

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

2 19-35188
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Goodenough because Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Goodenough’s conduct did not reasonably advance a legitimate
correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d
802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving
the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he
complains.”).
AFFIRMED.