JESS SMITH V. KEITH GOODENOUGH, No. 19-35188 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESS RICHARD SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-35188 D.C. No. 4:18-cv-05031-SMJ MEMORANDUM* KEITH GOODENOUGH, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 9, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Jess Richard Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 * 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). (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Goodenough because Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Goodenough’s conduct did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”). AFFIRMED. 2 19-35188

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.