Michael L. Alexander, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Larry Kincheloe, Superintendent, Spring Creek Correctional;peggy Brockman, Employee of Ak State Dept. of Corrections;charles Crandell, Warden of the Central Arizona Detentioncenter; Sharon Starr, Sgt., Employee of the Central Arizonadetention Center, Defendants-appellees, 122 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Michael L. Alexander, an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional due process violations and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

After a de novo review of the district court record, we agree with the district court that Alexander failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether being placed in administrative segregation for nine days at the Central Arizona Detention Center and for about nineteen days at the Spring Creek Correctional Center amounted to an atypical or significant deprivation. See Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). Alexander also failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his maximum-security reclassification amounted to an atypical or significant deprivation. See id. Finally, we agree with the district court that Alexander failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his placement in administrative segregation and transfer to Spring Creek was in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995).

We decline to consider Alexander's contention regarding the consent decree because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Duggan v. Hobbs, 99 F.3d 307, 313 (9th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.¹