N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAN GOODRIC K, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. TEREM A C ARLIN; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35923 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00603-EJL M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Edwa rd J. Lodge , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Idaho sta te prisone r Dan Goodric k a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a l le ging va rious c onstitutiona

l c la im s a rising out of his disc iplina ry he aring a nd a strip se arc h . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 

# FIL ED SEP 04 2015 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004), a n d we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Goodric k’ s re ta lia tion c la im s be c a

use Goodric k fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts’ de c isions to disc i pline him did not a dva

nc e le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa ls. Se eRhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th C ir. 2005) (e le m e nts of re ta lia tion c la im ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Goodric k’ s due proc e s s c la im s be c a

use Goodric k fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r his pla c e m e nt in a dm inistra t ive se gre g ation following disc iplina ry c onvic tions im

p lic ate d a prote c te d libe rty

inte re st. Se eSandin v . C onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486 (1995) (c onc luding tha t “ disc ipline in se gre gate d c onfine m e nt doe s not pre se nt the ty

pe of at y p ic a l, signific ant de priva

tion” re quire d to c re ate a

libe rty inte re s t); se ealso Se rrano v . Franc is , 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th C i r. 2003) (proc e dura l prote c tions a

pply to disc iplina

ry proc e e d ings “ only whe n the disc iplina ry a c t ion im plic ate s a prote c t e d libe rty inte re st” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Goodric k’ s Fourth and Eighth Ame n dm e nt c l a im s a rising out of a

strip se arc h be c a

use Goodric k 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 a rc h wa s unre a s ona

ble , or unde rtake n with de l ibe rate indiffe re nc e to his he a lth a nd sa fe ty . 1 3 - 3 5 9 2 3 2Se eBe ll v . W olfish , 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979) (fa c t ors to be c o nside re d whe n e va luating whe the r se arc h wa s unre a sona b le unde r Fourth Am e ndm e nt); se ealso Farme r v . Bre n nan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (c o nc luding tha t a “ prison offic ia l c annot be found lia

ble [unde r the Eighth Am e ndm e nt] . . . unle ss the offic ia l knows of and disre ga

rds e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a lth or sa fe ty ” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Goodric k’ s m otion to strikee vide nc e of his prior c o nvic tions be c a use the e v ide nc e wa s re le va nt a nd offe re d to show de fe nda

nts’ knowle dge . Se e El Pollo Loc o, Inc . v . Hashim , 316 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th C ir. 2003) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w); se ealso Fe d. R . Evid. 404(b)(2) (prior c onvic tion e vide nc e m ay be a dm issibleto show knowle dge ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Goodric k’ s m otions for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use Goodric k did not dem o nstra te e x c e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se ePalme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nts for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Goodric k’ s m otion to c o m pe l be c a use Goodric k fa ile d to e sta b lish a c tua l a

nd substa ntia l pre j udic e . Se eHalle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth sta n da rd of re vie w a n d re quiring a

showing of “ a c tua l a

n d substa ntia l pre judic e ” re sulting from the d e nia l of disc ove ry

(c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). 1 3 - 3 5 9 2 3 3W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd Goodric k’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to c onside r his e xhibits or to m ake the m pa rt of the re c ord. W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or in there ply

brie f. Se ePadge t t v . W

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

1 3 - 3 5 9 2 3 4