Curt Burris v. Jeffrey Walker , 370 F. App'x 771 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 08 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CURT L. BURRIS,                                   No. 08-17675
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00689-RLH-
    GWF
    v.
    JEFFREY P. WALKER; et al.,                        MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 16, 2010 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Curt L. Burris, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
    disciplinary conviction for a charge that was not listed in the Notice of Charges
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    provided to Burris prior to the hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291. We review de novo, Butterfield v. Bail, 
    120 F.3d 1023
    , 1024 (9th Cir.
    1997), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed the due process claim because the
    notice contained sufficient information to allow Burris to present a proper defense
    at his disciplinary hearing. See Bostic v. Carlson, 
    884 F.2d 1267
    , 1270-71 (9th
    Cir. 1989) (concluding that notice was adequate where it described the factual
    situation that was the basis for the disciplinary charge and alerted the prisoner of
    his alleged wrongdoing).
    The district court properly dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim because
    Burris did not allege facts showing that he was denied “the minimal civilized
    measure of life’s necessities,” or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference
    to his health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 834 (1994) (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Burris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    DS/Research                                2                                    08-17675
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-17675

Citation Numbers: 370 F. App'x 771

Filed Date: 3/8/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023