N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL R

EED DOR

R OUGH, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. M . R UFF, C ha irpe rson, Offic e of C orre c tiona l Sa fe ty ; EVER ETT W
. FISC HER , C om

m itte e M e m

be r of the Offic e o f C orre c tiona l Sa fe ty ; T. L. R OSENKR

A US; T. TUR

M EZEI; C
. EUB ANKS, Instituitona

l Ga ng Inve stiga tor; J. STOC KER ; J. GENTR Y , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-17875 D.C . No. 1:08-c v-01366-LJOGB C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 14, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
JAN 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : WALLAC E a nd B YB EE, C irc u i t Judge s, a nd RESTANI, Judge
. ** M ic ha e l R e e d Dorrough file d this a c t ion unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983, a lle ging that his right to due

proc e ss unde r the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt wa s viola te d whe n prison offic ia ls re -va lida

te d him a s a m e m be r of the B la c k Gue rilla

Fam ily ga

ng. Dorrough a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his Se c ond Am e nde d C om

pla int (“ SAC ” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd
we a ffirm
.

“ Dism issa l pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 12(b)(6) is re vie we d de nov o . The fa c ts a lle ge d in a c om pla int a re to be ta ke n a s true and m

ust pla usibly give rise to a

n e n t itle m e n t to re lie f.” Doughe rty v . C ity of C ov ina , 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th C i r. 2011) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d). M e re le ga l
c onc lusions, howeve r, “ are not e ntitle d to the a ssum ption of truth.” Id. (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). In a ddition, wem a y a ffirm the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r of dism issa l “ on a ny ground supporte d

by the re c ord.” Sams v
. Yahoo! Inc
. , 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th C ir. 2013). The doc um e nts in Dorrough’ s re -va lida tion pa c ka ge we re prope rly be fore the d istric t c o urt a

nd a re prope rly

be fore us now. Although the se doc um e nts we re

** The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Inte rna tiona l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion. 2not phy sic a lly atta c h e d to the SAC , Dorrough doe s not c onte s t the ir a uthe ntic ity
and the SAC ne c e ssa

rily re lie s on the m . Id . Furthe rm ore , the distric t c ourt took judic ia l notic e of the se doc um e nts, a nd Dorrough doe s not a

ppe a l the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision to do so. As a re sult, Dorrough ha s wa ive d a ny argum e nt to tha

t
e ffe c t. Se e Alask

a C tr. for the Env ’t v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 189 F.3d 851, 858 n.4 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ Argum e nts not ra ise d in ope ning brie f are wa ive d.” ). The prison offic ia ls c om

plie d with there quire m e nts tha t the y provide Dorrough with “ som e notic e of the c ha rge s a g a inst him

and a n opportunity

to pre s e nt his vie ws to theprison offic ia l c ha rge d with de c iding whe the r to tra nsfe r him to a dm inistra

t ive se gre gation.” Se e Bruc e v . Ylst , 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c i tation omitte d). As a re s ult, thesole issue is whe t

he r the re wa s “ som e e vide nc e ” to support Dorrough’ s re -va lida tion. W he the r the re wa s “ som e e vide n c e ” to support Dorrough’ s re -va l idat ion is a que stion of la

w. Se e C astro v . Te rhune , 712 F.3d 1304, 1314 (9th C ir. 2013).

“ Som e e vide nc e ” re vie w re quire s u s to a sk only wh e the r ther e i s any e v ide nc e in the re c o rd that c ould support the c onc lusion. T his te st is m inim a l ly stringe nt. Ac c o rdingly , we d o not e x am ine the e ntire re c ord , in d e pe nde ntly a sse ss witne ss c re dibility , or re we i gh the e vide n c e . Evide nc e only m ust be ar som e indic ia o f re lia b ili t y to b e c onside re d “ som e e vide nc e .” M o re ove r, e vide n c e m ay qua l if y a s “ som e e vid enc e ,” e ve n if it d oe s not logic a lly pre c l ude [ ] any c onc lusion but the one re a c he d.
3Id. (a l te ra tion in origina l) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Dorrough’ s c om pla int be c a

use m ore tha n one of the sourc e ite m s in his re -va lida tion pa c k a ge be ar “ s om e indic ia of
re lia bility .” For e xam

ple , we have he ld tha

t “ [p] roof tha

t a [] [c onfide ntia l ] inform an t pre viously

supplie d re lia

ble inform a tion is suffic i e nt” to e s ta blish
re lia bility
. Zimme rle e v . K

e e ne y , 831 F.2d 183, 187 (9th C i r. 1987). He re , the prison offic ia ls indic a te d tha t both theM arc h 30, 2006, a nd April 27, 2006,
c onfide ntia l inform a

nts we re c onside re d re lia

ble be c a u se “ [p] art of the inform a tion provide d by

the sourc e (s) ha [d] a lre a dy prove n to be true .” The s e c onfide ntia l inform an ts we re a lso c onside re d re lia ble be c a use the “ s ourc e [s] inc rim inate d [the m se lve s] in a

c rim ina l a c t ivity

at the tim e of providing the inform a tion.” Eithe r of the se ba se s is suffic ie nt indic ia of re l ia bility unde r the m inim a lly -stringe nt

“ som e e v ide nc e ” sta

n da rd. The re fore , “ som e e vide nc e ” supporte d Dorrough’ s re va lida tion a s a B GF ga ng m e m be r, a nd Dorrough wa s not de nie d due proc e s s a s a
m a tte r of la

w. Fina lly , e ve n a s sum ing the distric t c ourt fa ile d to e va luate the doc um e nts in the re -va lida

tion pa c ka ge , it would be

“ pointle ss” to re m and the c a se be c a use the
re c o rd is “ a de quate ly

de ve lope d suc h tha

t no ra tiona l jury

(or jurist) c ould find for

4[Dorrough] .” C a stro , 712 F.3d a

t 1314 (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks a

nd c ita tion
om i tte d). AFFIRM E D.

5