Case Name: Anthony RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HOGE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-05
Citations: 140 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 05-55054; D.C. No. CV-02-09347-DSF
Parties: Anthony RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HOGE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 763–763

Head Matter:
Anthony RANDOLPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HOGE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-55054.
D.C. No. CV-02-09347-DSF.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
Anthony Randolph, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Julie A. Bachman, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Anthony Randolph appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison correctional counselor John Hoge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Delta Sav. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Randolph's retaliation claim fails because he did not submit evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hoge's recommendation that Randolph be reclassified to a "Close B" custody status did not reasonably advance a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).
Similarly, Randolph failed to submit any evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hoge personally participated in the ultimate decision to not give Randolph an "override" allowing him to remain at Ironwood State Prison. See id.
We decline to consider contentions raised for the first time in Randolph's reply brief. See Pfingston v. Ronan Eng'g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1003-04 (9th Cir.2002).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.