HAMMLER v. KERNAN CDCR SIMAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 20-15774

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hammler's § 1983 civil rights action.

Allen Hammler, a California state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit under federal law alleging constitutional violations by prison officials. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision to dismiss his case and found no error in that determination. The court applied a fresh review standard and examined whether the lower court properly evaluated Hammler's claims under applicable legal standards.

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

Key issues

Whether the First Amendment claim adequately alleged that adverse action was taken in retaliation for protected speech
Whether the district court properly denied Hammler's motion for reconsideration
Sufficiency of factual allegations in a prison retaliation claim

Procedural posture

Hammler appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his § 1983 action for constitutional violations.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hammlers First Amendment claim because Hammler failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants took an adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hammlers motion for reconsideration because Hammler failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).

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.