Case Name: Daniel ALEJANDRO-DELEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEVADA; Robert Hoover, (State of Nevada); Olena K. Plummer; Jean L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-15
Citations: 7 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 99-16495; D.C. No. CV-97-00396-DWH/RAM
Parties: Daniel ALEJANDRO-DELEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEVADA; Robert Hoover, (State of Nevada); Olena K. Plummer; Jean L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before ALARCÓN, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 7
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
Daniel ALEJANDRO-DELEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEVADA; Robert Hoover, (State of Nevada); Olena K. Plummer; Jean L. Perry, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-16495. D.C. No. CV-97-00396-DWH/RAM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 13, 2001.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2001.
Decided March 15, 2001.
Before ALARCÓN, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Spelling is correct as noted. The district court docket sheet should be corrected to reflect this change as various court documents reflect the correct spelling of the name.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alejandro-DeLeon's retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) fails. He presented no facts to support his conclusory allegations that the legitimate reasons the University and College System of the State of Nevada (UCSSN) gave for not renewing his teaching contract were pretextual. Turin v. County of Los Angeles, 123 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that when a plaintiff offers nothing "other than [his] own conclusory statements, to refute the [defendant's] explanations for its decisions, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants with respect to . claims of unlawful retaliation").
Summary judgment was also appropriate with respect to Alejandro-DeLeon's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The five-month span between Alejandro-DeLeon's first complaint and the non-renewal of his teaching contract was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on his claim that his complaint was a "substantial or motivating" factor in the non-renewal of his teaching contract. See Keyser v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 1132, 1140 n. 4 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that "a proximity of three months or more is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.