Michael Edward Aguilar v. GENE COCA, Correctional Officer IV at ASPC - Safford/Tonto Unit

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL EDWARD AGUILAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GENE COCA, Correctional Officer IV at
ASPC - Safford/Tonto Unit; ROXANNE
HILL, Deputy Warden at ASPC -
Safford/Tonto Unit; VANCE LARKIN,
Captain, ASPC - Safford; MICHAEL
ENNIS, Captain, ASPC Safford; STACI
IBARRA; KIMBERLY CURRIER,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16789
D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00009-JGZ-PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Michael Edward Aguilar appeals pro se from the
* 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16789
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a
retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Aguilar’s action because Aguilar failed
to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Coca acted with a retaliatory
motive. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting
forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65
F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone is insufficient to
establish retaliatory motive).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Aguilar’s third
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without
leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --