FRANK BELLUE V. GARY KRESGE, No. 19-35679 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANK BELLUE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-35679 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00855-RSL MEMORANDUM* GARY KRESGE, CISA; JEFF LARSEN, CIS2, Defendants-Appellees, and WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. * 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). Washington state prisoner Frank Bellue appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bellue’s retaliation claim against defendants Kresge and Larsen because Bellue failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); see also McCollum v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 882-83 (9th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive required to overcome summary judgment). The district court properly dismissed Bellue’s due process claim because Bellue failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected interest in prison employment). We reject as without merit Bellue’s contentions that the district court erred by failing to consider his objections to the report and recommendations, failing to state the grounds for dismissal, and dismissing his action with prejudice. AFFIRMED. 2 19-35679

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.