N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHONDEL LAM AR

LAR KIN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. K. THOM AS, Sr., C orre c tiona l Lie ute na nt, sue d in offic ia l c a

pa c i ty and individua

l c a pa c i ty , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-56213 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-10503-DSF-OP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Shonde l La

m ar Larkin a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging re ta lia tion in viola

tion of theFirst Am e ndm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 

# FIL ED JAN 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). He b bev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d La

rkin’ s a c tion be c a

use Larkin fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nt’ s a c tions did not re a sona bly a dva nc e a le gitim ate c o rre c tiona l goa l. S e e Rhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a re ta l iation c l a im

in the prison c onte xt); Pratt v . Row land, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ The pla intiff be ars the burde n of ple a ding a nd proving the

a bse nc e of le g itim ate c orre c tiona l goa ls for the c o nduc t of whic h he c om pla i ns . . . . [C ourts] should a fford a ppropria te de fe re nc e and fle xibility to prison offic ia ls in thee va luation of proffe re d le gitim ate pe nologic a l re a sons for thec o nduc t a lle ge d to be re ta lia tory .” (c ita tions a nd quota tions m arks om itte d)); se ealso N a t’l Ass’n for the Adv anc e me nt of Psy c hoanaly sis v . C al. Bd. of Psyc hology , 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th C ir. 2000) (in de te rm ining whe the r the c om pla i nt sta te s a c la im for re lie f, “ we m ay c onside r fa c ts c onta ine d in doc um e nts a tta c he d to thec om

pla int” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing La rkin le ave to am e nd a fte r providing La rkin with a

n opportunity

to a m e nd a nd c o nc luding tha

t furthe r am e ndm e nt would be futile . Se e C e rv ante s v . C ountryw ide HomeLoans, 1 4 - 5 6 2 1 3 2Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd noting tha

t distric t c ourt m ay

dism iss without le ave to a m e nd whe n am e ndm e nt would be futile ). W e do not c onside r Larkin’ s a rgum e nt tha

t his dueproc e ss rights we re viola te d be c a use the ope ra tive c om

pla int did not a

lle ge a due proc e s s c la im . W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd La

rkin’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously

de nie d him disc ove ry . W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e n ts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D .

1 4 - 5 6 2 1 3 3