Charles A. Rogers v. N. Emerson; K. W. Goss

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES A. ROGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
N. EMERSON; K. W. GOSS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16490
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01827-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Charles A. Rogers appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment against defendant Emerson and negligence
against defendant Goss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Guatay
Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rogers’s First
Amendment retaliation claim because Rogers failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Emerson retaliated against him for filing a grievance.
See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff must
show that his protected conduct was the ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind
the defendant’s conduct.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rogers’s
negligence claim because Rogers failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Goss
was negligent in handling the allegations of harassment and retaliation. See
Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 572 (9th Cir. 2009) (outlining elements of
negligence claim under California law).
AFFIRMED.
14-16490 2

-- 2 of 2 --