NARCRISSUS SWANIGAN V. DAVID BAILEY, No. 12-36002 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 02 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NARCRISSUS SWANIGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-36002 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05073-EFS v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID BAILEY; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Narcrissus Swanigan appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Swanigan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants retaliated against him for complaining about alleged staff misconduct. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (uncorroborated and self-serving testimony does not raise a genuine dispute of fact). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Swanigan s motion for reconsideration because Swanigan failed to establish grounds warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We reject Swanigan s contentions that the court weighed evidence, made credibility findings and failed to consider evidence Swanigan submitted. 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 2 12-36002 appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3 12-36002

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.