NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, No. 15-17549
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01966-JAM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TODD WASKO,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Thomas John Heilman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation claims. 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
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Heilman’s
retaliation claim against defendant Wasko stemming from the filing of a rules
violation report because Heilman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether Wasko’s action was taken with a retaliatory motive or did not
reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408
F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in
the prison context).
The district court properly dismissed Heilman’s retaliation claims against
Wasko regarding the three 128-B general chronos because Heilman did not
properly exhaust his administrative remedies by submitting a timely grievance
regarding the general chronos. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006)
(holding that the “PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion”).
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);
see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not
manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a
claim . . . .”).
2 15-17549
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17549