David Thomas Rhodes v. Ricardo E. Chavez, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of FCI Phoenix

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID THOMAS RHODES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICARDO E. CHAVEZ, individually and in
his official capacity as Warden of FCI
Phoenix,
Respondent-Appellee,
J. HOFFMAN, individually and in his
official capacity as Inmate Systems
Manager, FCI Englewood; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ROBERT E MCFADDEN, individually and
in his official capacity as Federal Bureau of
Prisons Western Regional Director,
Defendant.
No. 18-15957
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01971-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15957
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner David Thomas Rhodes appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
alleging claims stemming from the calculation of his release date. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-
motions for summary judgment); Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th
Cir. 2008) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed nonresident defendants Watts and
Johnson for lack of personal jurisdiction because Rhodes failed to allege facts
sufficient to establish that Watts or Johnson have continuous and systematic
contacts with Arizona to establish general jurisdiction or sufficient minimum
contacts with Arizona to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over
either defendant. See Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1015-16 (specific jurisdiction);
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004)
(general jurisdiction).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15957
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rhodes’s claims
against defendant Chavez because Rhodes failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Chavez personally participated in the alleged
miscalculation, or whether there was a sufficient causal connection between
Chavez’s conduct and Rhodes’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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --