Jonathan B. Neuber v. Joshua Pritt;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN B. NEUBER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSHUA PRITT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35122
D.C. No. 6:15-cv-00833-JR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan B. Neuber appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
from the imposition of certain conditions of probation and post-prison supervision.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
* 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
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35122
summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity, May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d
557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established
law. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2023 (2014) (officials sued under
§ 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was
clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly
established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any
reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was
violating it”).
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 --