Santiago Cruz v. C. Betancourt ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO CRUZ, No. 17-16392
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00152-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. BETANCOURT, Correctional Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 19, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,** District Judge.
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer C.
Betancourt on Santiago Cruz’s claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
As the district court held, Cruz did not present sufficient evidence to establish
a genuine issue of material fact as to two elements of his retaliation claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983: (1) that Betancourt’s search of Cruz’s cell and seizure of property,
or the alleged orchestration of a fight between Cruz and another inmate, occurred
“because of” a grievance Cruz had filed against another correctional officer; and (2)
that Betancourt’s conduct in searching Cruz’s cell and seizing property did not
reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262,
1269 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cruz did not show that Betancourt had knowledge of a grievance Cruz had
previously filed with prison officials against another correctional officer, and
therefore did not show that Betancourt’s alleged conduct occurred “because of” the
grievance. Moreover, Cruz fails to demonstrate that Betancourt's actions did not
advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th
Cir. 1994). Betancourt's search of Cruz's cell uncovered a television, which Cruz was
prohibited from having because he was on "C-Status."
Cruz's Eighth Amendment claim also fails. Because Cruz's grievance did not
allege that Betancourt had orchestrated a fight between Cruz and another inmate, Cruz
did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Cruz also failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies because he did not timely file his grievance. Even if prison
officials accepted the late-filed grievance, as Cruz argues, he fails to show that they
2
addressed on the merits his allegation that Betancourt orchestrated a fight between Cruz
and another inmate. See Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2016).
AFFIRMED.
3