Robert J. Bardo v. M. Lockhart;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT J. BARDO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. LOCKHART; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16121
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03479-GEB-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert J. Bardo appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating photographs of and materials
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16121 2
referencing the actress that Bardo stalked and killed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th
Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bardo’s retaliation
claim because Bardo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants took any adverse action in retaliation for his legal filings, or whether
their actions did not reasonably advance legitimate penological interests. See
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining the elements
of a retaliation claim under § 1983).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bardo’s claim
challenging the California prison regulation justifying the confiscation because
Bardo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the regulation
is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’
constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --