*1 Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. *2 Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hammler’s First Amendment claim because Hammler failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants took an adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hammler ’s motion for reconsideration because Hammler failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).

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 20-15774

[*] 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).