David B. Johnson v. M. Crutchfield;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for**
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID B. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. CRUTCHFIELD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16482
D.C. No. 1:05-cv-00351-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David B. Johnson appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 08-16482 2
defendants fired him from his prison job and disciplined him in retaliation for his
grievance activity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson
failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the defendants’ conduct was based on
retaliatory motive, rather than legitimate penological goals. See id. at 1288–89
(setting forth requirements of retaliation claim and noting that the “plaintiff bears
the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for
the conduct of which he complains”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Johnson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --