JOHNNY ANDOE V. KEVIN KEMPH, No. 18-35527 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHNNY R. ANDOE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-35527 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00287-DCN v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN KEMPH, Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Johnny R. Andoe, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and access-to-courts claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, * 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). 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Andoe’s retaliation claim because Andoe failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant acted with a retaliatory motive. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-58 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-08 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone is insufficient to establish retaliatory intent). The district court properly dismissed Andoe’s access-to-courts claim because Andoe failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered actual injury to his ability to bring a non-frivolous legal claim. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-54 (1996) (discussing the actual injury requirement for an access-to-courts claim). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35527

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.