Case ID: f-appx_369/html/0845-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Wayne WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN, Director Adult Institutions; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15396.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 5, 2010.
    David Wayne Wilson, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Wayne Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming violations of his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s complaint because he failed to allege the violation of any right arising under the United States Constitution or federal law, as required for a Section 1983 claim. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). As to Wilson’s substantive due process claim, placement in administrative segregation does not impose the type of “atypical or significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the incidents of prison life” to give rise to a protected liberty interest. Id. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293; see also May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.1997). Nor does Wilson allege facts in support of a procedural due process claim, which would require lack of notice and opportunity for hearing preceding the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. See Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 584 F.3d 1232, 1236 (9th Cir.2009). Wilson failed to allege a protected interest, and admits that he both received advance notice of the temporary directive at issue and exercised the opportunity to challenge it.

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