NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS R. JOHNSON, No. 15-17273
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02881-TLN-
DAD
v.
D. BAKER, C/O; SPEER, C/O, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Luis R. Johnson appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted
with retaliatory intent to chill his exercise of protected conduct. See Brodheim v.
Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of retaliation claim in prison
context).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely
Johnson’s August 3, 2015 motion for summary judgment and September 18, 2015
motion to amend because Johnson filed them after the deadline for pretrial
motions. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.
2010) (standard of review); FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district
court has broad discretion to control its docket and set deadlines).
We reject as without merit Johnson’s arguments that the district court erred
by failing to rule separately on Johnson’s motion to strike and motion to remove
the magistrate judge prior to entry of summary judgment.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17273