Marco Pereyda-Rios v. Stephen Morrison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO PEREYDA-RIOS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEPHEN MORRISON,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-16695
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00032-RM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Marco Pereyda-Rios appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
* 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
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16695
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth Amendment due
process violations caused by misinformation published on a sex offender website.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stephens v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 935 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Pereyda-Rios
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Morrison
was personally involved in any constitutional violation or whether there was a
causal connection between Morrison’s conduct and any such violation. See Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a
supervisor under § 1983 if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in
the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the
supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Pereyda-Rios’s contention that the district court
was biased against him.
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 --