Case ID: f-appx_515/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raashad CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. CANNEDY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-16308.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed April 5, 2013.
    Raashad Carter, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Kathleen Boergers, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, 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 Raashad Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even though Carter’s year-long placement in administrative and disciplinary segregation likely imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him to implicate a protected liberty interest, Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was deprived of due process. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing combination factors used to evaluate whether challenged condition imposes an “atypical and significant hardship,” and due process requirements for when inmate faces disciplinary action); Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987) (setting forth due process requirements for when confidential information is used in prison disciplinary proceeding).

The record does not support Carter’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged error in prejudging the case or ignoring Carter’s arguments. AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.