Robert Mitchell v. C/O GILBERT, INI McNeil Island Correction Center;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C/O GILBERT, INI McNeil Island
Correction Center; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-36050
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05080-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Mitchell, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-36050 2
We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the interference
with mail and access to court claims because Mitchell failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants interfered with Mitchell’s
communications with his attorney, or whether a restriction, other than mail that
violated the stop contact order, was placed on his incoming or outgoing mail. See
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (party opposing summary
judgment may not rest on conclusory allegations or mere assertions).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mitchell’s claim
for restoration of and/or proper calculation of good time credit because resolution
of the claim would necessarily implicate the length of Mitchell’s confinement. See
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time
credits not cognizable under § 1983); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994) (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of
confinement are barred).
Mitchell’s contention that the district court should have granted him a
continuance so that he could conduct additional discovery fails because Mitchell
did not move the court for additional discovery as required by Federal Rule of

-- 2 of 3 --

10-36050 3
Civil Procedure 56(d). See Barona Grp. of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc., 840 F.2d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir. 1987)
(reference to a need for discovery in memoranda and declarations insufficient to
satisfy requirements for Rule 56 motion for additional discovery).
We decline to consider Mitchell’s challenge to the lawfulness of the stop
contact order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (court of
appeals will not consider issues not properly raised before the district court).
Mitchell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --