ALVERTO v. Stephen T. Ewing; et al., Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 20-35280

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, finding that Alverto failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether defendants took adverse action against him because of his grievance filing.

Jerome Ceasar Alverto, a Washington state prisoner, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in his federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that prison officials retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment after he filed a grievance. The appellate court reviewed the case from scratch and found no error in the lower court's decision.

Alverto's retaliation claim failed because, even if one of the defendants harbored a retaliatory motive, Alverto did not present sufficient evidence to show that the defendants took any action against him because of his grievance. The court rejected Alverto's other arguments as lacking support in the trial record. The court also noted that it would not consider new arguments or contentions raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Alverto established a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context
Whether defendants took adverse action because of Alverto's grievance
Sufficiency of evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact

Procedural posture

Alverto appealed pro se from a district court's grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Jerome Ceasar Alverto appeals pro se from the district courts 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even assuming defendant Samp had retaliatory motive against Alverto, Alverto failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any adverse actions against Alverto because of Alvertos grievance against defendant Samp. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context). We reject as unsupported by the record Alvertos contentions that defendant Henderlings actions set in motion acts that led to constitutional violations and that defendants’ statements were unsworn.

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).

Alvertos motion to extend the time to file his reply brief (Docket Entry No. 18) is granted. The Clerk will file Alvertos reply brief (Docket Entry No. 20).

AFFIRMED.