Harold Armstrong v. Keating , 385 F. App'x 662 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 22 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG,                             No. 08-17214
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:06-CV-01447-LKK-
    GGH
    v.
    KEATING,                                         MEMORANDUM *
    Defendant - Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Harold L. Armstrong, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
    district court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that
    *
    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).
    defendant improperly withdrew exempt funds from his trust account to pay
    restitution in connection with his criminal case. We have jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 
    302 F.3d 1039
    , 1043
    (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
    Armstrong failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the funds in his account were
    exempt from withdrawal for restitution or whether defendant was personally
    involved in withdrawing the funds. See Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 
    503 F.3d 947
    , 952
    n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a “conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking
    detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue
    of material fact” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Jones v.
    Williams, 
    297 F.3d 930
    , 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under
    color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of
    personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation . . . .”).
    Armstrong’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                  08-17214
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-17214

Citation Numbers: 385 F. App'x 662

Judges: Canby, Fletcher, Thomas

Filed Date: 6/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023