Esau Rogers v. S. Rivas , 486 F. App'x 648 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               OCT 17 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ESAU ROGERS,                                      No. 11-55439
    Plaintiff - Appellant,              D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02010-W-JMA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    S. RIVAS, Correctional Officer,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 9, 2012 **
    Before:       RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Esau Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s
    summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that Rivas searched his
    cell in retaliation for an administrative grievance that Rogers had filed against
    *
    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).
    Rivas over a year earlier. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 
    584 F.3d 1262
    , 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
    affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rogers failed
    to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his protected conduct
    motivated the search of his cell and whether the search reasonably advanced a
    legitimate penological goal. See 
    id. at 1270
     (explaining elements of a retaliation
    claim); see also Taylor v. List, 
    880 F.2d 1040
    , 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A summary
    judgment motion cannot be defeated relying solely on conclusory allegations
    unsupported by factual data.”).
    We decline to consider those documents submitted by Rogers that were not
    presented to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); United States v. Sanchez-
    Lopez, 
    879 F.2d 541
    , 548 (9th Cir. 1989).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                              11-55439
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-55439

Citation Numbers: 486 F. App'x 648

Judges: Murguia, Rawlinson, Watford

Filed Date: 10/17/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023