N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALVIN R ONNEL R OSS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. D. LATR AILLE; J. C ALLOW , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16764 D.C . No. 1:08-c v-01886-GSA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gary S. Austin, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre s iding ** Subm itte d Ja

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

ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing a First 

# FIL ED JAN 28 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

rtie s c onse n te d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Am e ndm e nt re ta lia tion c la im arising out of his re m ova l from

his work a ssignm e nt. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Brodhe i m v . C ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R o ss’ re ta l iation c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nt C a llow be c a

use R oss fa ile d

to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r C a llow’ s a c t ions did not re a sona b ly a dva nc e a le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa l. Se e id. at 1269 (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a re ta lia tion c la im in the prison c o nte xt); Pratt v . Row land, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th C ir. 1995) (e xpla ining tha t it is the pla intiff’ s burde n to prove the a bse nc e of a le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa l a nd tha t c ourts “ should a fford a

ppropria te de fe re nc e and fle xibility

to prison offic ia ls” whe n e va l uating proffe re d le gitim ate goa ls (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se e also Sc h roe de r v . Mc Donald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ Le gitim ate goa ls of a c o rre c tiona l institution inc l ude the pre se rvation of interna l orde r and disc ipline and the m a inte na nc e of institutiona

l se c urity .” ). C ontra ry to R oss’ c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt a ddre sse d his sta te la w c la im s a ga inst de fe n da

n t Latra i lle whe n it de c line d to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the c la im s. 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 1 4 - 1 6 7 6 4 2in 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 ); se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C ir. 1990) (“ Doc um e nts or fa c t s not pre se nte d

to the distric t c ourt a

re not pa rt of the re c ord on a

ppe a l.” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 7 6 4 3