Case ID: f-appx_635/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James H. TAKECHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. ADAME, Correctional Officer; J. Tyree, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16583.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 3, 2016.
    James H. Takechi, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Donn Robert Duncan, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James H. Takechi, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim in connection with his re-validation as an associate of a prison gang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Takechi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he did not receive the process he was due, or as to whether his re-validation was not supported by “some evidence.” See Castro v. Terhune, 712 F.3d 1304, 1307, 1314-15 (9th Cir.2013) (discussing the “some evidence” requirement); Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287-88 (explaining the due process requirements for gang validation in the prison context).

We reject as without merit Takechi’s contentions regarding contraband watch allegations in the operative complaint.

Takechi’s request for a list of district court documents, filed on October 3, 2014, is denied as moot.

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