Fraihat Faour Abdallah v. COHEN, Unit Manager at CCA;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRAIHAT FAOUR ABDALLAH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COHEN, Unit Manager at CCA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56211
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01452-JM-BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Fraihat Faour Abdallah, a former immigration detainee, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his Bivens action alleging that corrections
officials violated his constitutional rights by delaying his legal mail, mishandling
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-56211 2
his grievances, and retaliating against him for filing grievances. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261
F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any ground supported by the
record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on appellant’s due
process claim because “[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance
procedure.” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (order).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on appellant’s equal
protection claim because appellant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants discriminated against him. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v.
Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (the Equal Protection Clause
requires that all similarly situated persons be treated alike).
Summary judgment was proper on appellant’s access to courts claim because
appellant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
personally participated in the alleged violation, or whether there was a sufficient
causal connection between defendants’ conduct and appellant’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);

-- 2 of 3 --

08-56211 3
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability under section 1983
arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.”).
Summary judgment was proper on appellant’s retaliation claim because
appellant failed to raise genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant
Clover’s conduct had a chilling effect or caused “more than minimal” harm.
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a
retaliation claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including the denial of appellant’s motion for appointment of
counsel, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including
appellant’s challenge to the district court’s award of costs to defendants and its
dismissal of defendant Cerone. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Appellant’s contentions concerning the district court’s failure to consider
new allegations, its alleged denial of fair proceedings and a jury trial, and
defendants’ allegedly perjured affidavits are unpersuasive.
Appellant’s requests for appointment of counsel and injunctive relief are
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --