Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-55890/USCOURTS-ca9-14-55890-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Byrd
Appellee
Tobias A. Frank
Appellant
Derrick Schultz
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOBIAS A. FRANK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DERRICK SCHULTZ, Correctional

Counselor, individually and in

official capacity; R. BYRD,

Disciplinary Hearing Officer,

individually and in official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-55890

D.C. No.

5:12-cv-01848-

JAK-SS

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2015*

San Francisco, California

Filed December 14, 2015

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens,

and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 Case: 14-55890, 12/14/2015, ID: 9790646, DktEntry: 21-1, Page 1 of 5
2 FRANK V. SCHULTZ

SUMMARY**

Prisoner Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of prison officials in an action brought by a federal

prisoner pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that he had been

deprived of due process because he had not received

advanced written notice of modified disciplinary charges

brought against him. The panel held that the district court

properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s due

process claim because any procedural error was corrected

through the administrative appeal process, and plaintiff

ultimately did not lose any good time credits. 

COUNSEL

Tobias A. Frank, Fairton, New Jersey, pro se PlaintiffAppellant.

Stephanie Yonekura, ActingUnited States Attorney; Leon W.

Weidman, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Civil

Division; and David Pinchas, Assistant United States

Attorney, LosAngeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-55890, 12/14/2015, ID: 9790646, DktEntry: 21-1, Page 2 of 5
FRANK V. SCHULTZ 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Federal prisoner Tobias A. Frank appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his action under Bivens

v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging First and Fourteenth

Amendment violations.1 We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v. Duncan,

591 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

This action arises from Frank signing as a “witness”

another inmate’s document, which Correctional Counselor

Derek Schultz believed was contraband under prison policy.

2

As a result, Schultz issued Frank an incident report charging

him with “Possession of Anything Unauthorized.” 

Disciplinary Hearing Officer Rosie Byrd conducted a

disciplinary hearing, found that Frank had committed

“Conduct which Interferes with the Security or Orderly

Running of the Institution” (a different charge), and

sanctioned Frank with the loss of fourteen days of good time

credits.3 However, Frank filed a successful administrative

1 We address Frank’s First Amendment retaliation claim in a

concurrently filed memorandum disposition.

2 The prison policy was based on a part of the Court Security

Improvement Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1521, which prohibits filing or attempting

to file false liens against federal employees.

 

3

 Frank was also sanctioned with the loss of commissary and visitation

rights for three months. Because Frank does not raise this loss in his

opening brief, he has waived the issue. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley

Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]ssues which are

 Case: 14-55890, 12/14/2015, ID: 9790646, DktEntry: 21-1, Page 3 of 5
4 FRANK V. SCHULTZ

appeal, and ultimately the incident report was removed from

his file and his credits were restored. Frank then filed the

instant action alleging that he had been deprived of due

process because, among other things, Frank had not received

advance written notice that Byrd was modifying the charge.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on

Frank’s due process claim because, as our sister circuits have

recognized, any procedural error was corrected through the

administrative appeal process, and Frank ultimately did not

lose any good time credits. See Wycoff v. Nichols, 94 F.3d

1187, 1189 (8th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he [administrative] reversal

of the case against Wycoff constituted part of the due process

Wycoff received, and it cured the alleged due process

violation based on the [prison] disciplinary committee’s

initial decision to sanction Wycoff.”); Morrisette v. Peters,

45 F.3d 1119, 1122 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“There is no

denial of due process if the error the inmate complains of is

corrected in the administrative appeal process. The

administrative appeal process is part of the due process

afforded prisoners.” (citation omitted)); Young v. Hoffman,

970 F.2d 1154, 1156 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“[W]e need

not decide whether Young suffered a denial of due process in

connection with his disciplinary hearing, because . . . [t]he

administrative reversal constituted part of the due process

not specifically and distinctly argued and raised in a party’s opening brief

are waived.”).

 Case: 14-55890, 12/14/2015, ID: 9790646, DktEntry: 21-1, Page 4 of 5
FRANK V. SCHULTZ 5

protection he received, and it cured any procedural defect that

may have occurred.”).4

AFFIRMED.

4

See also Torricellas v. Poole, 954 F. Supp. 1405, 1414 (C.D. Cal.

1997) (“Where a procedural error has been corrected in the administrative

process, as it was here, there has been no compensable due process

violation. The administrative appeal is considered part of the process

afforded, and any error in the process can be corrected during that appeals

process without necessarily subjecting prison officials to liability for

procedural violations at lower levels.”), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.

1998) (unpublished) (affirming for the reasons stated by the district court).

 Case: 14-55890, 12/14/2015, ID: 9790646, DktEntry: 21-1, Page 5 of 5