Christopher Thomas v. Rw Stevwing, Jr. , 616 F. App'x 271 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE THOMAS, No. 14-16715
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01719-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RW STEVWING, Jr., Correctional Officer
IV at ASPC Yuma Complex; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Eugene Thomas, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation and other federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004) (summary judgment); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Thomas’s
retaliation claim against Stevwing because Thomas failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Stevwing was responsible for the termination
of Thomas’s prison job or transfer to another unit. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408
F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison
context); see also Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175,
1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing causation under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s access-to-courts claim
because Thomas failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual
injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim
requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a
non-frivolous legal claim).
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s conspiracy claim because
Thomas failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant formed an
agreement or had a meeting of the minds. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
2 14-16715
(2009) (a pleading must offer more than “labels and conclusions or a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2012)
(requirements of a civil conspiracy claim).
The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s retaliation claim against
defendants Bradley, Bock, and Ryan because Thomas failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that these defendants retaliated against Thomas because of his
protected conduct. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68.
We do not consider Thomas’s contention that the district court erred by not
considering a procedural due process claim in connection with the termination of
Thomas’s prison job because that claim was not raised in his complaint.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Thomas’s motions for injunctive relief, filed on May 21, 2015 and June 15,
2015, are denied.
Thomas’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16715