FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG, No. 08-17214
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-CV-01447-LKK-
GGH
v.
KEATING, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harold L. Armstrong, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
*
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).
defendant improperly withdrew exempt funds from his trust account to pay
restitution in connection with his criminal case. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1043
(9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Armstrong failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the funds in his account were
exempt from withdrawal for restitution or whether defendant was personally
involved in withdrawing the funds. See Nilsson v. City of Mesa, 503 F.3d 947, 952
n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a “conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking
detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under
color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of
personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation . . . .”).
Armstrong’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17214