Chester R. Sheppard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Theo White, Warden State Prison of California at New Folsom;robert Buda, Correctional Officer, Defendants-appellees, 78 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 78 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Feb. 27, 1996. *Decided March 4, 1996

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

California state prisoner Chester R. Sheppard appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Sheppard contends defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety when they placed him on the "AdSeg yard" with an inmate who had previously assaulted him. We disagree for the reasons stated by the district court.

Sheppard contends that defendants retaliated against him for filing this suit by confiscating his property and transferring him to seven different prisons over the course of this action. Sheppard raised his allegations of retaliation in his November 1, 1994 change of address notice and again in his objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The record indicates that Sheppard was transferred on at least seven occasions. Absent a narrowly tailored legitimate penological purpose, prison officials may not take actions against an inmate because he has exercised a constitutional right. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985). Consequently, we remand for the district court to address the claim. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.