Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr. v. CORTEZ, Third Watch Lieutenant, individual

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 LEE JENKINS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORTEZ, Third Watch Lieutenant,
individual,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-55928
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03891-ODW-
RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-55928 2
review de novo, Cook v. Brewer, 649 F.3d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam),
and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the retaliation claims because the
complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Cortez was involved in any
actions that were motivated by retaliation. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983; a plaintiff must
show the defendant’s personal involvement in alleged violations); Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (prisoner must demonstrate that
the purported adverse action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional
goal).
The district court properly dismissed the due process claim because Jenkins
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a protected liberty interest was at stake.
See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process
protections “adhere only when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty
interest in some unexpected [manner] or imposes an atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55928 3
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Jenkins’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --