FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER GRINDLING, No. 10-16456
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01685-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TODD THOMAS, Warden at SCC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Grindling, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
violations of his right to religious freedom and retaliation for filing grievances.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v.
*
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).
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001)
(summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the religious freedom claims without
prejudice because Grindling failed to exhaust administrative remedies or
demonstrate that he was prevented from doing so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.
81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to
administrative procedural rules).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation
claim because Grindling failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether his placement in disciplinary segregation failed to advance a legitimate
penological goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim); Pratt v.
Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (courts should afford appropriate
deference and flexibility to prison officials when evaluating proffered legitimate
penological reasons for alleged retaliatory conduct).
We do not consider contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Grindling’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
2 10-16456
We deny Grindling’s “Motion to Correct Obvious Error,” filed on January
10, 2011, and “Motion to Reconsider,” filed on May 23, 2011.
To the extent that Grindling’s notice, filed on May 2, 2011, seeks the
appointment of counsel and injunctive relief, we deny the request. Grindling may
file a separate lawsuit to address any ongoing issues regarding the conditions of his
confinement.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-16456