Paul Lanakila Campos v. United States of America

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL LANAKILA CAMPOS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16442
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00526-HC-KSC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Paul Lanakila Campos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for defendant in his Federal Tort Claims Act action arising from a slip
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-16442 2
and fall injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Bolt v. United States, 509 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Campos failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant had
notice of an unsafe condition or defect. See id. (“Even when the injury occurs on
federal property, the finding of negligence must be based upon state law.”)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Harris v. State, 623 P.2d 446, 448
(Haw. 1981) (explaining that negligence liability cannot be imposed where there is
no actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition or defect).
We do not consider evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Campos’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --