N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KARL LOUIS GUILLEN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. QUINC Y OW ENS; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16298 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00226-JW S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na John W . Se dwic k, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding ** Subm itte d M ay

13, 2014 *** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Form e r Ariz ona

sta te prisone r Karl Louis Guille n a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging dueproc e ss, 

# FIL ED MAY30 2014 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 Honora

ble John W . Se dwic k, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion. *** 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).Eighth Am e ndm e nt, a nd re t a lia tion c la i m s re l ating to his c onfine m e nt in a dm inistra

tive se gre gation. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Bruc e v . Ylst , 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th C ir. 2003) (sum m ary judgm e nt); Re

snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Guille n’ s re t a lia tion c la im be c a use Guille n’ s a lle gat ions we re c onc lusory an d Guille n fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts showing that de fe n da nts tra nsfe rre d him

to a supe rm a x prison be c a

u se of his prote c te d c onduc t. Se e Rhode

s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a

re ta lia tion c la im in the prison c onte xt). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Guillen’ s c la im that his c onfine m e nt in a dm inistra tive se gre gation on fa lse c ha rge s viola te d his due proc e s s rights be c a

use Guille n fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the se gre gat e d c onfine m e nt c re ate d a libe rty inte re s t. Se e Sandin v . C onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) (c onc luding tha t “ disc iplinein se gre gate d c onfine m e nt did not pre se nt the ty pe of aty pic a l, signific ant de priva

tion” re quire d to c re ate a

libe rty inte re st). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Guillen’ s c la im that his inde t e rm inate de te ntion in a dm i nistra tive se g re gation viola

te d his due 1 2 - 1 6 2 9 8 2proc e s s rights be c a use Guille n fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r prison offic ia ls a fforde d him a ll of the proc e ss he wa s due unde r the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt. Se e Toussaint v . Mc C a rthy , 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01, 1104 (9th C ir. 1986) (e xpla ining tha t due proc e ss re quire s c e rta in m inim a l proc e d ure s, a nd noting tha

t som e sort of pe riodic re v ie w of a n inm ate ’ s c ontinue d se gre gate d c onfine m e nt is ne c e ssa ry ), abrogate d in part on othe r grounds by Sandin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472 (1995); se e also Bruc e , 351 F.3d a t 1287. To the e xte nt tha t de fe nda nts m ay h a

ve fa i le d to c onduc t tim e ly pe riodic re v ie ws, the distric t c o urt prope rly

grante d sum m ary judgm e nt on theba sis of qua lifie d im m unity unde r the unique fa c ts of this c a se . Se e Pe arson v . C a llahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Guillen’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c onditions of c onfine m e nt c la im s be c a use Guille n fa ile d to ra i se a ge nuine d ispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s pla c e d in substa ntia l risk of se rious ha rm by his te m pora ry pla c e m e nt in a c e ll tha

t wa s too wa

rm or by his c onfine m e nt in inde finite a dm inistra tive se gre g ation. Se e Farme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“ [A] prison offic ia l c annot be found lia ble unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt for de ny ing a n inm ate hum ane c onditions of c onfine m e nt unle ss the offic ia l knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a l th or sa fe t y . . . .” ). 1 2 - 1 6 2 9 8 3The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

granting sum

m ary judgm e nt without ordering furthe r disc ove ry be c a u se Guille n did not e sta

b lish how a dditional disc ove ry w o uld ha ve a ffe c te d the disposition of his c a se . Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(d); Barona Grp. of the C apitan Grande

Band of Mission Indians v . Am. Mgmt. &Amuse me n t, Inc ., 840 F.2d 1394, 1399-1400 (9th C ir. 1987) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd noting tha

t in m aking a

m otion for furthe r disc ove ry a m ova nt m ust show spe c i fic fa c ts he hope s to disc o ve r and how those fa c t s would pre c lude sum

m ary judgm e nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Guillen’ s m otion for re lie f from

judgm e nt be c a

u se Guille n fa ile d to e sta

blish grounds for such re lie f. Se e Sc h . Dist. N

o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd grounds for re c onside ra tion). W e do not c onside r m atte rs 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 2 - 1 6 2 9 8 4