Chism v. Chang

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. CHISM III, No. 24-6258 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:20-cv-01072-DJC-DMC v. MEMORANDUM* CHANG, Correctional Counselor I; DE LA ROSA, Sergeant; CROSS, Correctional Officer; DOMINGO, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Court, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner William H. Chism, III appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Chism failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Chang or De La Rosa took adverse actions against him or as to whether Cross and Domingo’s actions were not taken in furtherance of legitimate penological goals. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6258