Carlos G. Reyes v. M. ALONZO, Lieutenant, individually

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS G. REYES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M. ALONZO, Lieutenant, individually and
in their official capacities; D. BAILEY,
Chief Disciplinary Officer, individually and
in their official capacities; RAYMOND
MADDEN, Warden, Warden, individually
and in their official capacities; A. AVILA,
ISU Officer #7,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55775
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02134-LAB-MSB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Carlos G. Reyes appeals pro se from the district
* 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).
FILED
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55775
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reyes’s retaliation claims because
Reyes failed to allege facts sufficient to show defendants retaliated against Reyes
because of his protected conduct. 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).
The district court properly dismissed Reyes’s due process claims because
Reyes failed to allege facts sufficient to show he was deprived of a protected
liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (explaining that a
prisoner has no protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither
extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --