Unpublished Disposition, 922 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Norman Lewis DEHNOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.P. COOMBS, C. Hylton, Larry Kincheloe, John Lambert, T.Lewis, Lt. Marsh, C. Meyer, Boyd Moreland, H.C. Penrose, C.Proctor, John Roberts, Hal Snively, Michael Strang, S.L.Suckow, Jim Van Atta, Bob Williams, Lt. Menke, WayneHelgeson, and Roger Benson, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 1990.* Decided Jan. 10, 1991.
Before WRIGHT, BRUNETTI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Norman Lewis Dehnoff, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in his civil rights action. Dehnoff contends that the record shows that there are genuine issues of material fact to be considered, and that summary judgment thus was inappropriate. We affirm.
Dehnoff's first amended complaint alleged that defendants violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 by conspiring to deprive him of his rights under the first, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. In essence, Dehnoff's claim revolves around his allegation that defendants conspired to retaliate against him for exercising his first amendment right to file civil rights litigation in general and to file institutional grievances within the prison system.
The defendants moved for summary judgment. After oral argument was heard, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dehnoff timely appeals.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there were any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court properly applied the relevant substantive law. Tzung v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 873 F.2d 1338, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1989).
After carefully reviewing the record in this case, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment and adopt the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order as our own. Dehnoff failed to present any evidence, beyond mere allegations, that the defendants conspired to violate his civil and constitutional rights.