William Smith v. Dave Powell, 693 F. App'x 610

William M. Smith, an Oregon state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising from prison actions (outgoing mail regulation, a disciplinary hearing/sanction, and alleged retaliation).
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Smith appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit.
Smith challenged (1) regulation of his outgoing mail as violating free speech, (2) a disciplinary hearing/sanction as violating due process, and (3) actions by a defendant (Powell) as retaliatory for protected conduct.
Smith moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) for additional discovery to oppose summary judgment; the district court denied that motion.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court, concluding Smith had not raised genuine disputes of material fact on the asserted claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Free speech: regulation of outgoing mail	Smith argued the mail regulation infringed his First Amendment rights.	Prison regulation was justified by substantial governmental interests supporting mail restrictions.	Affirmed — Smith failed to show the regulation lacked a substantial governmental justification.
Retaliation	Smith claimed Powell acted with retaliatory motive against his protected conduct.	Powell contended actions were not motivated by retaliation.	Affirmed — Smith failed to raise a genuine issue that Powell acted with a retaliatory motive.
Due process for disciplinary hearing/sanction	Smith argued the hearing/sanction deprived him of a protected liberty interest and due process.	Defendants argued the sanction did not create an atypical/significant hardship and procedural due process requirements were met.	Affirmed — no protected liberty interest shown; disciplinary decision supported by required evidence standards.
56(d) discovery denial	Smith contended requested discovery would have precluded summary judgment.	Defendants maintained discovery would not have changed the summary judgment outcome.	Affirmed — Smith did not show the requested discovery would have precluded summary judgment.

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 1983 claims and de novo review of summary judgment)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1974) (factors for evaluating constitutionality of regulating prisoner correspondence)
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements required to prove retaliation in prison context)
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (retaliation requires protected conduct be a substantial or motivating factor)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (protected liberty interest exists only for atypical and significant hardships relative to ordinary prison life)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) ("some evidence" standard satisfies due process for prison disciplinary findings)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for Rule 56(d) and showing discovery would preclude summary judgment)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal)