Robert Hackworth, Jr. v. G. Torres

MEMORANDUM ** Robert Hackworth appeals the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Officers Torres and Grimsley with respect to his First Amendment retaliation claim, and the court’s exclusion of certain evidence at trial relating to the retention of records at Corcoran State Prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 1 and we affirm. 1. The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Officers Torres and Grimsley because Hackworth failed to establish a nexus between the statements he made at an administrative hearing and the officers’ involvement in a subsequent physical altercation that resulted in his injury. See Huskey v. *651 City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000). Neither Torres nor Grimsley was present at the hearing, and Hackworth relies only on speculative inferences to argue that the officers nevertheless knew of and were motivated by Hackworth’s statements. See Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County, 556 F.3d 797, 808 (9th Cir. 2009); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995). 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as irrelevant a court order purporting to give Cor-coran notice of Hackworth’s claims as of August 1, 2006, such that video evidence relating to this matter should have been preserved. The order did not have a tendency to prove Corcoran’s knowledge of this matter because it was vague (it provides no specifics as to the type of claim filed and lists only one of the four defendants by name), and there is no indication that anyone at Corcoran even received it (the listed recipient is the Director of the California Department of Corrections in Sacramento). Moreover, Hackworth has not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the exclusion of the order, as the content of the missing video was not disputed, and the circumstances surrounding its preservation and destruction were presented at trial. See GCB Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. S. Commc’ns, Inc., 650 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 AFFIRMED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. [1] The record reflects that the district court docketed the jury verdict in favor of defen *651 dants, but that it never filed a final judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. The absence of a separate, final judgment does not preclude appellate jurisdiction in this matter, especially as neither party contests the issue. See Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 1987). [2] We note that, although it would not have affected the outcome of this case, some degree of coordination between the California Department of Corrections and individual prisons regarding the receipt of such court orders may be prudent.