JEROME ALVERTO V. MICHELLE HENDERLING, No. 20-35280 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35280 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01380-BJR MEMORANDUM* MICHELLE HENDERLING, sued individually and in her/his official capacity; RICHARD SAMP, Shift Lieutenant, sued individually and in her/his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and STEPHEN T. EWING; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Washington state prisoner Jerome Ceasar Alverto appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even assuming defendant Samp had retaliatory motive against Alverto, Alverto failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any adverse actions against Alverto because of Alverto’s grievance against defendant Samp. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context). We reject as unsupported by the record Alverto’s contentions that defendant Henderling’s actions set in motion acts that led to constitutional violations and that defendants’ statements were unsworn. 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). Alverto’s motion to extend the time to file his reply brief (Docket Entry No. 18) is granted. The Clerk will file Alverto’s reply brief (Docket Entry No. 20). AFFIRMED. 2 20-35280

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.