The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-36112•Kale Vorak v. John Servatius, individually
14-36112Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 19, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KALE VORAK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN SERVATIUS, individually;
CHUCK PRATHER, Individually, AKA
Charles Prather, AKA Charles E. Prather,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-36112
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00335-SMJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Kale Vorak appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First
Amendment retaliation claim arising out of the filing of prison grievances. We
FILED
APR 19 2016
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 --
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry,
584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vorak failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with a
retaliatory motive or whether there was an absence of legitimate correctional goals
for defendants’ conduct. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a retaliation
claim in the prison context); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”);
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that it is the
plaintiff’s burden to prove the absence of a legitimate correctional goal and that
courts “should afford appropriate deference and flexibility to prison officials”
when evaluating proffered legitimate goals (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
14-36112 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.