Raashad Carter v. L. Cannedy , 515 F. App'x 660 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 05 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RAASHAD CARTER,                                   No. 12-16308
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02381-JCW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    L. CANNEDY; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    J. Clifford Wallace, District Judge, Presiding **
    Submitted March 12, 2013 ***
    Before:        PREGERSON, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Raashad Carter appeals pro se from the district
    court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, United States Senior Circuit Judge
    for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
    novo, Keenan v. Hall, 
    83 F.3d 1083
    , 1088 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even though
    Carter’s year-long placement in administrative and disciplinary segregation likely
    imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him to implicate a protected liberty
    interest, Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he
    was deprived of due process. See Serrano v. Francis, 
    345 F.3d 1071
    , 1077-78 (9th
    Cir. 2003) (discussing combination factors used to evaluate whether challenged
    condition imposes an “atypical and significant hardship,” and due process
    requirements for when inmate faces disciplinary action); Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 
    831 F.2d 183
    , 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth due process requirements for when
    confidential information is used in prison disciplinary proceeding).
    The record does not support Carter’s contentions regarding the district
    court’s alleged error in pre-judging the case or ignoring Carter’s arguments.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     12-16308
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-16308

Citation Numbers: 515 F. App'x 660

Judges: Fletcher, Pregerson, Reinhardt

Filed Date: 4/5/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023