LEWIS A. HARRY, Jr. v. Arizona, State of;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LEWIS A. HARRY, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARIZONA, STATE OF; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15111
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00507-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Lewis A. Harry, Jr., appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
violations and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JAN 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15111 2
review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th
Cir. 2001) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harry’s retaliation
claim because Harry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant Martinez transferred Harry in retaliation for his filing of grievances or
whether the transfer advanced a legitimate correctional goal. See Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining the elements of a
retaliation claim under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Harry’s claims alleging deliberate
indifference because Harry did not allege that defendants were deliberately
indifferent to any serious medical need. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994) (to act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know of an
disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety).
The district court properly dismissed Harry’s claims against the State of
Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections because those claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[I]n the absence of consent a suit in which

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15111 3
the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is
proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”).
The district court properly dismissed Harry’s claims alleging that defendants
breached a settlement agreement because it had no jurisdiction to enforce that
agreement. See O’Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[F]ederal
courts do not have inherent or ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement simply because the subject of that settlement was a federal lawsuit.
When the initial action is dismissed, federal jurisdiction terminates.”).
Harry’s contention that the district court erred in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his contract claim is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --