eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2011-07

Daryl Armstead v. Moti Raghunath , 443 F. App'x 234 ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUL 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARYL ARMSTEAD,                                  No. 09-57005
Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02246-CJC-
AGR
v.
MOTI RAGHUNATH, C.F.M. 1 and                     MEMORANDUM *
CURTIS WELLS, Assistant F.M.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before:        SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Daryl Armstead, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that prison
officials retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the district court’s
summary judgment, Lopez v. Smith,
    203 F.3d 1122
    , 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc),
and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to amend, City
of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works,
    635 F.3d 440
    , 446 (9th Cir. 2011), and
we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Armstead
failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
aware of his grievance prior to changing the lunch and dinner menus. See Rhodes
v. Robinson,
    408 F.3d 559
    , 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of a retaliation
claim); Pratt v. Rowland,
    65 F.3d 802
    , 808 (9th Cir. 1995).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Armstead’s motion
for leave to amend where the motion was filed after briefing on defendants’
summary judgment motion was complete. See M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego
Marine Constr. Corp.,
    708 F.2d 1483
    , 1492 (9th Cir. 1983).
AFFIRMED.
2                                   09-57055