COLEMAN v. FIGUEROA CSATF (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Saahdi Coleman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Coleman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Figueroa caused Coleman’s injury. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (in order to sustain a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct was the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the claimed injury).

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.