S.Ct. 2744, 2752, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982)). Accordingly, the-plaintiffs cause as to the defendant Take It From Me, Inc. must be dismissed. III. THE COURT SHALL GRANT SUMMARY judgment IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS WILLIAM E. MOSELEY AND DAVID D. ROACH BECAUSE BOTH DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. To state a claim for retaliation, the plaintiff must allege that “he was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action does not advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline.” Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir.1985)); see Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 412-14,109 S.Ct. 1874, 1881-82, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff must also show that the
holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security holding that prison administration may infringe upon prisoners first amendment rights as long as the infringement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest holding that regulations may impinge constitutional rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests