Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0585-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy H. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jim GIBBONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17530.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 11, 2012.
    Timothy H. Johnson, Ely, NV, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Timothy H. Johnson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the deduction of room and board costs from his prison wages violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because the deductions were effected by a valid act of the Nevada legislature, and the legislative process satisfies the requirements of procedural due process. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.461(l)(b) (deductions from prison wages, pursuant to Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.463, is a condition of employment); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 209.463(l)(e) (authorizing deductions to “offset the cost of maintaining the offender in the institution”); Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1261 (9th Cir.1994) (“[Governmental decisions which affect large areas and are not directed at one or a few individuals do not give rise to the constitutional procedural due process requirements of individual notice and hearing; general notice as provided by law is sufficient.”).

Johnson’s remaining contentions, including those regarding legislative intent, are unpersuasive.

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