Claudell Earl Martin v. Loadholt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOADHOLT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-15750
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges
Claudell Earl Martin, 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.
Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
FILED
AUG 25 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 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Martin failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Loadholt took an
adverse action against Martin because of his protected conduct. See id. at 1035
(setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v.
Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (an adverse action taken before an
inmate’s protected conduct does not demonstrate retaliatory motive); see also
Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[M]ere speculation that
defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Martin’s motion for
reconsideration because Martin did not demonstrate any basis for reconsideration.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for granting motion for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We reject as without merit Martin’s contentions that the district court failed
to consider both his evidence and objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations.
AFFIRMED.
15-15750 2

-- 2 of 2 --