Michael John Gaddy v. M. TOWNSEND, Appeals Coordinator;

17-16743Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 27, 2018

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL JOHN GADDY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M. TOWNSEND, Appeals Coordinator; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16743
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-01319-HSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy 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. Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We reverse and remand.
* 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
MAR 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16743
The district court granted summary judgment on Gaddy’s retaliation claim
on the basis that Gaddy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants took any adverse action against Gaddy or acted in retaliation.
See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements
of a retaliation claim in the prison context). The record shows that Gaddy filed a
grievance to correct an error in his disciplinary record, and defendants granted the
grievance and corrected the error. However, the first level response to Gaddy’s
grievance also contained an error, Gaddy filed grievances to correct this error, and
all of these grievances were denied and the first level response was never
corrected. Because it is unclear from the record why defendants refused to correct
the error contained in the first level response, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.