Allen Hammler v. M. Oliveira

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLEN HAMMLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M. OLIVEIRA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16268
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00417-DAD-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 17, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment
retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,
* 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
MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16268
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hammler’s action because Hammler
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Oliveira took an adverse
action against Hammler because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry,
584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation
claim in the prison context).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --