Lamar Howard Jeffries v. Snake River Corrections - Oregon;

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).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAMAR HOWARD JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONS -
OREGON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35707
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01851-JO
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Lamar Howard Jeffries, a former Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

PDM/Research 08-35707 2
action alleging constitutional violations in connection with mail handling policies
of the Oregon Department of Corrections and Snake River Correctional Institute.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Oliver v.
Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jeffries’s First
Amendment claims because Jeffries failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether the prison’s mail handling policies were reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987)
(discussing factors relevant in determining whether regulation that impinges on
First Amendment rights is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests).
We do not consider issues that Jeffries raises for the first time on appeal, see
Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir. 1992) (“As a
general rule, an appellate court will not hear an issue raised for the first time on
appeal.”), or issues that Jeffries has abandoned on appeal, see Cook v. Schriro, 538
F.3d 1000, 1014 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that issues not raised on appeal
are deemed abandoned).
Jeffries’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Jeffries’s renewed request for sanctions is denied because he does not
demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion. See Cooter & Gell v.

-- 2 of 3 --

PDM/Research 08-35707 3
Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990) (reviewing for abuse of discretion
district court’s decision to deny sanctions).
Jeffries’s request to strike the answering brief is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --