Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0951-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keith Duane ARLINE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.J. JANDA, Associate Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55294
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 03, 2016
    Keith Duane Arline, Jr., PBSP—Pelican Bay State Prison, Crescent City, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    John Paul Walters, II, Esquire, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction 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 Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendant Powell’s findings were not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.