Tony Asberry v. Phelps

Ninth Circuit

Tony Asberry v. Phelps

586 F. App'x 403

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 2014

Docket13-16899

StatusUnpublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 403 (Tony Asberry v. Phelps) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tony Asberry v. Phelps, 586 F. App'x 403 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tony Asberry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with his prison housing assignments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, FDIC v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Asberry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (a § 1983 equal protection claim requires showing that the defendant “acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class”); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

*404 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Defendant’s unopposed motion to supplement the record, filed on June 9, 2014, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no.t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tony Asberry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with his prison housing assignments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, FDIC v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Asberry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (a § 1983 equal protection claim requires showing that the defendant “acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class”); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

*404 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

Defendant’s unopposed motion to supplement the record, filed on June 9, 2014, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no.t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 F. App'x 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tony-asberry-v-phelps-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack