Gregory Tabarez v. James Tilton , 384 F. App'x 610 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY TABAREZ, No. 09-15661
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-04920-JF
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES E. TILTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Tabarez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials
*
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).
transferred him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289
F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Tabarez did
not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his transfer to another
prison facility did not serve a legitimate penological interest. See Pratt v.
Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoner bears burden of proving
absence of legitimate correctional goals for alleged retaliatory conduct and
deference should be afforded to prison officials in evaluating proffered goals).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in its disposition of the
challenged pretrial motions. See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 913 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial
phase of litigation . . . .”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Terrell v.
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in denying
appointment of counsel because no exceptional circumstance).
Tabarez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15661