Marvin Hollis v. Eloy Medina, No. 09-16803 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 01 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN G. HOLLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-16803 D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02980-TEH v. MEMORANDUM * ELOY MEDINA, Correctional Counselor II Appeals Coordinator, Defendant - Appellee. MARVIN G. HOLLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-16987 D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02790-TEH v. DAVID CAPLAN, Correctional Sergeant, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Marvin G. Hollis appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgments in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions alleging retaliation by prison officials. We review de novo. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Hollis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their conduct was based on a retaliatory motive rather than a legitimate correctional goal. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must show allegedly retaliatory action did not advance legitimate correctional goals). Hollis s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. We treat Hollis s motions for judicial notice as citations of supplemental authorities pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). AFFIRMED. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 09-16803

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.