Oden v. Reed

── Oden v. Reed ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRELL ODEN, No. 24-5281 D.C. No. 5:22-cv-06980-BLF Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* J. REED; J. PEFFLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Terrell Oden appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021). * 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). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Oden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Reed found Oden guilty of fraud because of Oden’s protected conduct or whether the guilty finding did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of retaliation claim in the prison context); see also Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “[t]o prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was “the ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor behind the defendant’s conduct” (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 24-5281