EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr. v. Carlo Maceri

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CARLO MACERI,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15886
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00252-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edward Vincent Ray, Jr., who was housed in Arizona when he filed this
action, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Broadheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15886
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ray failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Maceri’s allegedly
retaliatory cell search failed to advance a legitimate penological purpose. See
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements
of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806
(9th Cir. 1995) (“[P]laintiff bears the burden of . . . proving the absence of
legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ray’s request for
judicial notice. See Fed R. Evid. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact
that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); Lee
v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of
review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --