Jonathan W. Grigsby v. ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JONATHAN W. GRIGSBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17587
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01475-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan W. Grigsby, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and
Fourteenth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-17587 2
review de novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grigsby’s First
Amendment claims because Grigsby failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants personally caused the alleged deprivation of his
constitutional rights based on the isolated incidents of a piece of mail not being
delivered and a priority mail package being delayed fifteen days. See Leer v.
Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative
act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he
is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff
complains.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grigsby’s due
process claim because Grigsby failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants were personally involved in the confiscation or destruction
of his excess stamps. See id.
We reject Grigsby’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that he was
denied an opportunity to oppose summary judgment, because the evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17587 3
described in Grigsby’s briefs would have been insufficient to defeat summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --