Manuel WINN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. W. NEVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: October 21, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Winn, Pro Se D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, Frank Anthony Toddre, II, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV - Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Nevada state prisoner Manuel Winn appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Winn’s claims against defendants McDaniel, Neven, and Fierro because Winn failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Winn’s due process claim against defendants Thompson and Barth arising from his prison disciplinary proceeding because Winn failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was denied any procedural protections that were due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports prison disciplinary decision).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Winn’s retaliation claim against defendant Evangelista because Winn failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his protected activity motivated Evangelista’s allegedly retaliatory conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.