Chung Chung Kao v. J. DELFIN, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNG CHUNG KAO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. DELFIN, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-56496
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02841-ABC-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Chung Kao, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bruce v. Ylst, 351
F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 27 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 --

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kao failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Delfin took an adverse action
against Kao that was in response to protected conduct and 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);
Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d at 1289.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kao’s motion to file
a late opposition because he failed to establish excusable neglect. See Ahanchia v.
Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and
factors for determining whether neglect is excusable).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kao’s motion to
reconsider because Kao failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
13-56496 2

-- 2 of 2 --