# Jonathan Neuber v. Joshua Pritt

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 20, 2017 · 707 F. App'x 889

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4230771

## Case

- **Full name:** Jonathan B. NEUBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua PRITT; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 20, 2017
- **Citations:** 707 F. App'x 889
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wallace, Silverman, Bybee
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4230771

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN B. NEUBER, No. 17-35122

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:15-cv-00833-JR

v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSHUA PRITT; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan B. Neuber appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising

from the imposition of certain conditions of probation and post-prison supervision.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

*
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).
summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity, May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d

557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of

qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established

law. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, 2023 (2014) (officials sued under

§ 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was

clearly established; “a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly

established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any

reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was

violating it”).

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 17-35122

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4230771. Public record. Not legal advice.