Thomas Carlson v. Brian Duffy , 672 F. App'x 721 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS JOHN CARLSON, No. 15-15899
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00766-TLN-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BRIAN DUFFY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Thomas John Carlson appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials illegally withdrew from his prison trust account Veteran’s
Disability Benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a). We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026
(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Carlson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. See Jones v. Williams,
297 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of
state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal
participation in the alleged rights deprivation . . . .”); cf. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d
891, 894-97 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) precludes prison
officials from placing holds on an inmate’s account, and that an inmate cannot
assign his future Veteran’s Disability Benefits to pay for goods and services that he
has received).
We reject as without merit Carlson’s contention that the district court did not
consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations
and the authority cited therein.
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).
2 15-15899
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15899