Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0475-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Vincent RAY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carlo MACERI, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-15886
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 4, 2017
    
      Edward Vincent Ray, Jr., Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Ashlee Fletcher, Struck, Wieneke & Love, PLC, Daniel Patrick Struck, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Kevin L. Nguyen, Struck Love Bojanowski <&■ Acedo PLC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Vincent Ray, Jr., who was housed in Arizona when he filed this action, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Maceri’s allegedly retaliatory cell search failed to advance a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[Pjlaintiff bears the burden of ... proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ray’s request for judicial notice. See Fed R. Evid. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it ... can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

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. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.