NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. MAURICE JUNIOUS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 17077
D.C. No. 1:09

- cv - 00484

- AWI

- SAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2018 **
Before: TROTT , SILVERMAN , and TALLMAN , Circuit Judges. Barry Louis Lamon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the distr ict court’s ruling on cross

- motions for summary judgment.

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 10 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17077

Guatay Christian Fellowship v. C ounty of San Diego , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir.
201 1) . We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We affirm. Summary judgment for D efendant Dr. Talisman was proper because Lamon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact either as to (1) wh ether there was an absence of legitimate correctional goals for Dr. Talisman’s conduct , or (2)
whether Dr. Talisman retaliated against him in connection with legal action he filed against the doctor. See Shepard v. Quillen , 840 F.3d 686, 688 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim in prison context ); Pratt v. Rowland , 65 F.3d 802, 80 6 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] successful retal iation claim requires a finding that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” (citation a nd internal quotation marks omitted)). Lamon bases his argument on claims that (1) the district co urt improperly decided issues of witness credibility on summary judgment, and (2) that the testimony of Dr. Talisman on April 02, 2008 , during his “ Keyhea hearing” 1 was

“ sufficient to establish a prima faci e showing that Talisman’s participation in th ose proceedings were [sic] motivated by his desire to retaliate against me for filing

1 Keyhea v

. Rushen , 178 Cal . App. 3d 526 (Ct. App. 1986). A t the conclusion of t his hearing, the ALJ found that Lamon was a danger to himself on account of a mental defect or disorder.3 15

- 17077

lawsuits against him [and his colleagues].” Our review reveals that Lamo n’s contentions have no merit. First, the magistrate judge in his r ecommendations to the district court explicitly said that at the summary judgment stage, a court “does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. ” Our examination of h is work indicates that he was faithful to this principle.
Second , with respect to Dr. Talisman’s testimony at the Keyhea hearing, the magistrate judge said that th e “transcript

. . . does not demonstrate that Dr.
Talisman recommended Plaint iff be invo luntarily medicated based on Plaintiff’ s court filing .” The court added that there is “no evidence that Dr. Talisman’s testimony in support of involuntary medication at Plaintiff’s Keyhea hearing was based on anything other than his profes sional medical o pinion” regarding his patient’s mental condition. The court also concluded that notwithstanding the doctor’s awareness of Lamon’s federal litigation activities, “ there is not even a
scintilla of evidence that [Dr. Talisman] retaliated against [ him ] for exercising his rights under the First Amendment.” We hav e reviewed Dr. Talisman ’s testimony
offe r ed by Lamon in support of his argument, and we agree with the district court’s

assessment that Lamon has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material f act . We are unable to find in this record any evidence whatsoever that would support a jury verdict in Lamon’s favor. The irony in Lamon’s argument is that Dr. Talisman4 15

- 17077

believed that the procedure and medication about which Lamon complains actually impro ved his legal work. The district court did not abuse its discretion in not considering other inmates’ declarations and paragraph 13 of Lamon’s declaration because the
evidence was not relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 (defining relevant evidence);
Fed. R. E vid. 402 (irrelevant evidence is inadmissible); see also Las Vegas Sands,
LLC v. Nehme , 632 F.3d 526, 532, 534 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that even where a district court abuses its discretion, we

reverse only if the e videntiary ruling was prejudicial). Contrary to Lamon’s contention, the district court did not sustain D efendants’ objections to paragraphs 5, 8, or 9 of his declaration or to Exhibit 2 of his declaration. We reject as without merit Lamon’s contention tha t the district court erred i n denying his motion to strike D efendants’ separate statement of undisputed facts. Because Lamon does not raise any cognizable arguments regarding the district court’s g rant of summary judgment as to D efendants Magvas and Osborne, either in his opening or in his reply brie fs, Lamon waives

-- or forfeits

-- any such challenge on appeal. See Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’ s
op ening brief

.”). In their answering brief, Appellee s invoked waiver with respect to all issues involving Magvas and Osbo rne. Lamon did not resp ond in his reply5 15

- 17077

b rief to their argument, asking only that we reverse and remand with “instructions that [the co urt] proceed against Defendant Talisman on my First Amendment retaliation claim.” We treat Lamon’s “verification of sole authorship” (Docket Entry No. 28) as satisfying the court’s deficiency notice (Docket Entry No. 24

- 2). Lamon’s motion
for extension of time to file a corrected reply brief (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied
as unnecessary. The reply brief was filed on November 2 3 , 2016.
AFFIRMED.