ALLEN HAMMLER V. M. OLIVEIRA, No. 20-16268 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALLEN HAMMLER, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-16268 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00417-DAD-JLT MEMORANDUM* M. OLIVEIRA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, * 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). 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hammler’s action because Hammler failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Oliveira took an adverse action against Hammler because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context). AFFIRMED. 2 20-16268

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.