Narcrissus Swanigan v. David Bailey;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NARCRISSUS SWANIGAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BAILEY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-36002
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05073-EFS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Narcrissus Swanigan appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials retaliated against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Swanigan
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants retaliated
against him for complaining about alleged staff misconduct. See id. at 1269
(setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison
context); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)
(uncorroborated and self-serving testimony does not raise a genuine dispute of
fact).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Swanigan’s motion
for reconsideration because Swanigan failed to establish grounds 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 factors for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We reject Swanigan’s contentions that the court weighed evidence, made
credibility findings and failed to consider evidence Swanigan submitted.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
12-36002 2

-- 2 of 3 --

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
12-36002 3

-- 3 of 3 --