Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0805-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Debra BROOKS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2013.
    WSCC-Warm Springs Correctional Center, Carson City, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Raymond Padilla, pro se.
    Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Raymond Padilla appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations in connection with sanctions imposed for refusing to be double-celled and with his placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Padilla’s claims based on his placement in administrative segregation and his claims against defendants Chambliss, Gibbons, Peltzer, Skolnik, and Doe defendants 1-2 because Padilla failed to allege sufficient facts linking defendants to the alleged constitutional violations. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (discussing the causation requirement of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim); Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207-08 (explaining the requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

The district court properly dismissed Padilla’s claims against the State of Nevada and its agencies, and his claims for damages against individual defendants in their official capacities, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir.2007) (states, state agencies, and state officials sued for damages in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla’s motions for reconsideration because Padilla failed to establish a basis 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 grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

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).

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