Daniel Steve Dixon v. S. LAROSA, Correctional Officer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL STEVE DIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S. LAROSA, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15812
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01441-TLN-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Steve Dixon appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of an
allegedly retaliatory cell search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and
FILED
AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dixon’s retaliation
claim against defendant LaRosa because Dixon failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether LaRosa was aware of any protected activity when he
searched Dixon’s cell. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.
2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
To the extent that Dixon intended to challenge the dismissal of his retaliation
claim against defendant Keenan, we do not consider this issue because it was 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).
AFFIRMED.
15-15812 2

-- 2 of 2 --