Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Keith L. CLOSSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy GONZALEZ, Correctional Manager, Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Washington state prisoner Keith L. Closson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to receive mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Closson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the prison’s policy of rejecting incoming mail containing a detailed map of areas of Washington was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (a prison regulation that “impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights” is valid “if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”).
We reject as without merit Closson’s contentions regarding the applicability of George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Closson’s request that the appeal be heard on the full district court record (Docket Entry No. 6) is granted. Closson’s request to attach the documents filed at Docket Entry No. 4 to his opening brief (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied as unnecessary because the documents are part of the district court record.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-35084
Decided: October 26, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)