Harter
Mason v. Harter
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Because the facts are familiar to the parties involved, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.
1. Mason failed adequately to preserve his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The only theory articulated in his appellate brief underlying that claim is that Mason was *691 retaliated against for his anti-gay e-mail. In his opposition to summary judgment, however, Mason did not raise any freedom of speech issue and did not connect the cancellation of the motorcycle program or his e-mail account with his § 1988 claim. He cannot raise the speech retaliation issue for the first time on appeal. See Gants Credit Corp. v. Anderson (In re Jan Weilert RV, Inc.), 315 F.3d 1192, 1199 (9th Cir.2003). Further, the district court had no obligation to search through the record looking for potentially supportive facts and theories for Mason’s case. See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 , 1031 (9th Cir.2001).
2. Mason has failed to submit evidence establishing that President Harter acted with “actual malice” when she called him a bigot, and therefore has not met his evidentiary burden on the defamation claim.