William Rouser v. Theo White;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ROUSER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THEO WHITE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
E. W. MEADS, Protestant Chaplain; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-56349
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09123-RGK-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Rouser appeals pro se from the district
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56349
court’s order denying Rouser’s motion for contempt for violations of a consent
decree. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a district court’s decision to deny a motion for contempt. Hallett v.
Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 749 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
Although the district court found that defendants violated the consent decree
by failing to permit Rouser to access his religious items within thirty days of his
transfer, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rouser’s motion
for contempt because Rouser did not request sanctions and the violation had
already ended. See Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 629 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“A court may wield its civil contempt powers for two separate and
independent purposes: (1) to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court’s
order; and (2) to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder
Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 696 (9th Cir. 1993) (a civil contempt sanctions award
“must be limited to [a party’s] actual loss for injuries which result from the
noncompliance” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
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
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --