Jeremy Strohmeyer v. Beguefuth ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 16 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY STROHMEYER, No. 21-15760
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
3:14-cv-00661-RCJ-WGC
v.
BEGUEFUTH; BOARD OF PRISON, MEMORANDUM*
Nevada; MICHAEL BOBADILLA;
TARA CARPENTER; C. CARTIER;
CATHRINE MASTO CORTEZ, Nevada
Attorney General; DWAYNE DEAL; S. L.
FOSTER; JAMES FOX; STARLIN
GENTRY; M. GILDER; JAMES
KEENER; ROBERT LEGRAND, Warden;
ROSS MILLER, Secretary of State;
VALAREE OLIVAS; C. RUIZ; C.
RUTHERFORD; SANDY; C.
SCHARDIN; S. SISCO; STATE OF
NEVADA; ADAM VALLASTER;
MICHAEL WARD; WHITEMAN; JOHN
WHITING; DAVID CARPENTER;
DONNA JENKINS; K. KIRKPATRICK;
KEITH MIRANDA; DAVID
BEQUETTE; KELLY BELANGER;
MICHELLE GILDER; CHARLES
SCHARDIN, Dr.; STATE OF NEVADA,
ex rel NDOC,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 12, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and NR SMITH, Circuit Judges
Jeremy Strohmeyer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of the defendants and dismissal of one of his claims in his prisoner civil
rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009); Thompson v. Davis,
295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly held that the Due Process Clause does not protect
an inmate from transfers from one state prison to another, even if one prison has
“more adverse conditions of confinement.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221
(2005); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976).
Summary judgment was proper on the claim alleging that the defendants
failed to protect Strohmeyer from another inmate. Strohmeyer failed to offer
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
admissible evidence to establish that any defendant acted with deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837-38 (1994) (setting forth the standard). Strohmeyer’s conclusory
allegations, without evidence of supporting facts, will not create a genuine issue of
material fact. Far Out Prod., Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 997 (9th Cir. 2001).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the due process
claims arising out of the disciplinary hearings. Assuming that Strohmeyer had a
liberty interest, he received the process due under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 563-69 (1974). He was not entitled to “the full panoply of rights due” in a
criminal prosecution. Id. at 556. Moreover, the decision was supported by some
evidence in the record. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985)
(setting forth the standard). Contrary to Strohmeyer’s claim, the some evidence
standard applies to his due process claims. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th
Cir. 2003).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appointment of
counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the
“exceptional circumstances” standard and standard of review).
Nor has Strohmeyer established that the district court abused its discretion or
that he suffered actual and substantial prejudice from any of the district court’s
3
discovery orders. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth the standard). The mere fact that the court ruled against Strohmeyer
does not establish bias. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).
Strohmeyer’s arguments regarding taxation of costs in the previous appeal
(No. 15-16147) lack merit because we specifically denied his request in that
appeal.
We decline to consider other claims alluded to by Strohmeyer as having
been raised below, but that are not otherwise explained or supported by argument
in the brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding
that we generally do not consider issues “not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in appellant’s opening brief”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that issues raised, but
not supported by argument, are abandoned or waived).
Strohmeyer’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. Entry No.
32) is DENIED.
AFFIRMED
4