Jonathan Watkins v. I. Baca , 703 F. App'x 610 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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