THOMAS CARLSON V. BRIAN DUFFY, No. 15-15899 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS JOHN CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15899 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00766-TLN-AC 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
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.
