Kenneth Williams v. Odoc ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS, No. 19-35404
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:17-cv-01695-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; RICK COURSEY,
Superintendent at Eastern Oregon
Correctional Institution (EOCI); LEONARD
WILLIAMSON, Inspector General at
ODOC; MICHAEL F. GOWER, Assistant
Administrator at ODOC; MICHAEL POPE,
Correctional Officer at ODOC; DAVID
POWELL, Disciplinary Hearings Officer at
EOCI,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Oregon state prisoner Kenneth Gregory Williams appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Williams’s due
process claim because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether the discipline imposed infringed on a protected liberty interest, or
whether the discipline lacked any evidentiary basis. See Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest
when the sanction imposed neither invariably extends the length of his sentence
nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life”); Burnsworth v. Gunderson, 179 F.3d 771, 775
(9th Cir. 1999) (no due process violation unless “a conviction was totally
unsupported by evidence”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Williams’s Eighth
Amendment claim because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants’ conduct deprived him of “the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities.” Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d
1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2 19-35404
We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions that the discovery process
was unfair.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35404