RHODES v. Robert E McFadden, individually and in his official capacity as Federal Bureau of Prisons Western Regional Director, Defendant. (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Former federal prisoner David Thomas Rhodes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging claims stemming from the calculation of his release date. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment); Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed nonresident defendants Watts and Johnson for lack of personal jurisdiction because Rhodes failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that Watts or Johnson have continuous and systematic contacts with Arizona to establish general jurisdiction or sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over either defendant. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015-16 (specific jurisdiction); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (general jurisdiction).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rhodes’s claims against defendant Chavez because Rhodes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Chavez personally participated in the alleged miscalculation, or whether there was a sufficient causal connection between Chavez’s conduct and Rhodes’s injury. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “a Bivens action is the federal analog to an action against state or local officials under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983” and discussing the requirements for establishing supervisory liability).

AFFIRMED.