NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN LESTER COX, No. 16-35370
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05584-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C/O SAYWERS, Floor officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
John Lester Cox, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment retaliation claims. 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
*
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).
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Saywers and Kerr
because Cox failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there
was an absence of legitimate correctional goals for defendants’ conduct. See Pratt
v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] successful retaliation claim
requires a finding that the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance
legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough
to achieve such goals.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Barnett v.
Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (preserving institutional order and
discipline are legitimate penological objectives).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Southwick
because Cox failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Southwick took any adverse action. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114
(9th Cir. 2012) (adverse action required for prisoner retaliation claim).
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). We do not
consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921
F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35370