CHARLES ROGERS V. N. EMERSON, No. 14-16490 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES A. ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-16490 D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01827-AWIDLB v. N. EMERSON; K. W. GOSS, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 21, 2015** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Charles A. Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against defendant Emerson and negligence against defendant Goss. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review * 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). de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rogers’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Rogers failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Emerson retaliated against him for filing a grievance. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind the defendant’s conduct.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rogers’s negligence claim because Rogers failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Goss was negligent in handling the allegations of harassment and retaliation. See Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 572 (9th Cir. 2009) (outlining elements of negligence claim under California law). AFFIRMED. 2 14-16490

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.