Opinion
21-15871
11-17-2022
JOYCE SIMMONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. Z. JENKINS II, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2022 San Francisco, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-04536-VC Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Joyce Simmons appeals the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging disciplinary proceedings in which the Bureau of Prisons docked Simmons seven days of good time credit after she sent an email without prior authorization on behalf of another prisoner. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Bello-Reyes v. Gaynor, 985 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.
Simmons argues on appeal that the disciplinary decision violated her First Amendment right to send outgoing mail from prison. As a general rule, we "do not consider an issue not passed upon below." Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2017). Because Simmons did not raise her First Amendment challenge before the district court, we decline to address the issue for the first time on appeal.
We also decline to address whether the prison disciplinary proceedings violated Simmons's due process rights, because Simmons has abandoned that argument on appeal. See Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986) ("The Court of Appeals will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief.").
AFFIRMED.
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.