Raymond Padilla v. Debra Brooks;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAYMOND PADILLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEBRA BROOKS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15031
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00442-RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert A. McQuaid, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 24, 2013***
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Raymond Padilla appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
FILED
OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15031 2
violations in connection with sanctions imposed for refusing to be double-celled
and with his placement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Padilla’s claims based on his
placement in administrative segregation and his claims against defendants
Chambliss, Gibbons, Peltzer, Skolnik, and Doe defendants 1-2 because Padilla
failed to allege sufficient facts linking defendants to the alleged constitutional
violations. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012)
(en banc) (discussing the causation requirement of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim);
Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207-08 (explaining the requirements for establishing
supervisory liability).
The district court properly dismissed Padilla’s claims against the State of
Nevada and its agencies, and his claims for damages against individual defendants
in their official capacities, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Flint v.
Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (states, state agencies, and state
officials sued for damages in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15031 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla’s motions
for reconsideration because Padilla failed to establish a basis warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --