Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0774-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dennis PERRYMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James DEACON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-35224.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 15, 2015.
    Dennis Perryman, pro se.
    Michael S. Shin, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dennis Perryman, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perryman’s due process claim in connection with his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Perryman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements before imposing sanctions implicating a prisoner’s liberty interest); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

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