ROBERT BARDO V. M. LOCKHART, No. 12-16121 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT J. BARDO, No. 12-16121 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03479-GEBEFB v. MEMORANDUM * M. LOCKHART; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 11, 2013 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Robert J. Bardo appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by confiscating photographs of and materials * 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). referencing the actress that Bardo stalked and killed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bardo s retaliation claim because Bardo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any adverse action in retaliation for his legal filings, or whether their actions did not reasonably advance legitimate penological interests. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining the elements of a retaliation claim under § 1983). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bardo s claim challenging the California prison regulation justifying the confiscation because Bardo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the regulation is not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) ( [W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. ). AFFIRMED. 2 12-16121

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.