JONATHAN WATKINS V. I. BACA, No. 17-15410 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15410 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00186-MMD-VPC v. MEMORANDUM* I. BACA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Jonathan Watkins, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim related to the handling of his outgoing mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. O’Keefe v. Van * 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). Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Baca permitted by regulation more than a “cursory visual inspection” of outgoing legal mail, Nordstrom v. Ryan, 856 F.3d 1265, 1272 (9th Cir. 2017), or otherwise knowingly tolerated a violation of Watkins’s First Amendment rights. See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265-66 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing prisoners’ First Amendment right to send and receive mail); see also Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisors can only be liable under § 1983 if they are personally involved in a constitutional deprivation or if they implement a constitutionally deficient policy). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). 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. 2 17-15410

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.