Will Palmer v. G. Salazar , 498 F. App'x 721 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILL MOSES PALMER, III, No. 11-17011
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05378-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM *
G. R. SALAZAR; E. SANCHEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Will Moses Palmer, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Palmer failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was improperly denied
procedural protections during his disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 556, 564-70 (1974) (describing minimum procedural due process
protections in prison disciplinary proceedings and noting that the “full panoply of
rights” due a defendant in criminal proceedings does not apply).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending a
ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d
1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Qualified immunity confers upon officials a right, not
merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters
as discovery.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Alaska Cargo
Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard
of review).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17011