NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOJO EJONGA-DEOGRACIAS, No. 24-1359 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00320-RSM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary, Department of Corrections; MICHAEL OBENLAND, Superintendent, Monroe Correctional Complex; WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; ROY GONZALEZ,

Headquarters Correctional Manager, Department of Corrections; SCOTT RUSSELL, Assistant Secretary/Deputy Director, Department of Corrections; CARLA SCHETTLER, Superintendent/Associate Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary; LEE STEMLER, CS2 Grievance Coordinator, Monroe Correctional Complex; DAVID HEISE, Construction/Maintenance Project Supervisor, Monroe Correctional Complex,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner JoJo Ejonga-Deogracias appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First

Amendment claim related to receiving photographs in the mail. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705

F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of

qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established

constitutional rights. See Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2002)

(concluding qualified immunity proper when there was no binding precedent and

when “the policy’s illegality was not so obvious that any prison official involved in

enforcing it should have known he was breaking the law”).

Ejonga’s request for counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-1359