NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 4 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO SMITH PARRA, No. 14-15720
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00913-LRH-
WGC
v.
E. K. McDANIEL; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Julio Smith Parra appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parra’s due
process claim because Parra failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he experienced an “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life” that would give rise to a protected liberty interest.
See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Contrary to Parra’s contention,
the district court was not required to address whether there was “some evidence” to
support the disciplinary finding.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parra’s retaliation
claim because Parra failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant Bryant took an adverse action against Parra in response to Parra’s
protected conduct. See id. at 1269-71 (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison
context; “a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or
motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters 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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15720