*1 Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Saahdi Coleman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access -to- courts claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

*2 The district court properly granted summary judgment because Coleman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Figueroa caused Coleman ’s injury . See Harper v. City of Los Angeles , 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (in order to sustain a § 1983 claim, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s conduct was the cause -in-fact and proximate cause of the claimed injury).

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2

[*] 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).