Jonathan Watkins v. I. Baca ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 21 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JONATHAN WATKINS,                               No. 17-15410
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00186-MMD-VPC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    I. BACA,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 15, 2017**
    Before:      CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Jonathan Watkins, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging a First
    Amendment claim related to the handling of his outgoing mail. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. O’Keefe v. Van
    *
    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).
    Boening, 
    82 F.3d 322
    , 324 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watkins
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Baca
    permitted by regulation more than a “cursory visual inspection” of outgoing legal
    mail, Nordstrom v. Ryan, 
    856 F.3d 1265
    , 1272 (9th Cir. 2017), or otherwise
    knowingly tolerated a violation of Watkins’s First Amendment rights. See
    Witherow v. Paff, 
    52 F.3d 264
    , 265-66 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing prisoners’ First
    Amendment right to send and receive mail); see also Crowley v. Bannister, 
    734 F.3d 967
    , 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisors can only be liable under § 1983 if they
    are personally involved in a constitutional deprivation or if they implement a
    constitutionally deficient policy).
    We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
    United States v. Elias, 
    921 F.2d 870
    , 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
    presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
    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).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      17-15410
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-15410

Judges: Canby, Trott, Graber

Filed Date: 11/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024