Case ID: f-appx_551/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Narcrissus SWANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David BAILEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-36002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
    Narcrissus Swanigan, Connell, WA, pro se.
    John C. Dittman, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Narcrissus Swanigan 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Swanigan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants retaliated against him for complaining about alleged staff misconduct. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.2002) (uncorroborated and self-serving testimony does not raise a genuine dispute of fact).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Swanigan’s motion for reconsideration because Swanigan failed to establish grounds warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

We reject Swanigan’s contentions that the court weighed evidence, made credibility findings and failed to consider evidence Swanigan submitted.

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.2008) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.