KALE VORAK V. JOHN SERVATIUS, No. 14-36112 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 19 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KALE VORAK, No. 14-36112 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00335-SMJ v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN SERVATIUS, individually; CHUCK PRATHER, Individually, AKA Charles Prather, AKA Charles E. Prather, Defendants - Appellees. 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 * 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). 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. 2 14-36112

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.