T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR I O H . E S T R AD A, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. R O B E R T A . H O R E L , W a r d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 15892 D . C . N o . 4 : 0 9 -cv -0 2 3 3 0 -P JH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hy l l i s J . H a m i l t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner M ar i o H . E stra da appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons i n c o n n e c t i o n w i th ap r i s o n g a n g v a l i d a t i o n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED JU L 10 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15892 2 § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo both adi s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) , B arr e n v . H arr i ngton , 152 F . 3d 1193, 1194 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( o r d e r ) , a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, Mo rr is o n v . H a ll , 261 F . 3d 8 9 6 , 9 0 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dE s tr a d a ’s p r o c e du r a l du e p r o c e s s c la im c onc e rni ng de f

e nda ntM a r que z ’ s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the ga ng va l i da t i on pr oc e e di ng be c aus e E s tr a daha d a n opportuni tyt o pr e s e nthi s vi e w s t o the I ns t i tut i ona l G a ng I n v e s tig a to r . Se e T

ous s ai nt v . Mc Car thy , 926 F . 2d 800, 803 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ( due pr oc e s s r e qui r e s opportuni tyf orpr i s one rt o pr e s e ntvi e w s t o the c r i t i c a l de c i s i onm aker ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton E s tr a da ’ s due p ro cess cl ai m co n cern i n g th e su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce u sedt o v al i d at e h i m as a g a n g m e m b e rb e c au s e th e r e w a s “s o m e e v id e n c e ” to s up p o rt th e v a lid a tio n . See B ru ce v. Y

l st , 35 1 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 -88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( af fi rm i ng sum m ary j udgm e nton due pr oc e s s c l a i m w he r e “ s om e e vi de nc e ” s upport e d the ga ng v a lid a tio n , a n de x p la in in g th a t th e s tan d a r dis m e t w h e r e th e r e is a n ye v id e n c e in the re cord thatcoul d sup po rtthe concl usi on ). T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n E stra d a’s re t al i at i on cl ai m because E stra da fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i alfa ct11- 15892 3 a s to r e ta lia to rym o tiv e . Se e R hodes v . R obi ns on , 40 8 F . 3d 55 9, 56 7-68 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( se tt i ng forth the el em ent s of are t al i at i on cl ai m ). E s tr a d a ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . E s tr a d a ’s m o tio n to ta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e , f ile do n D e c e m b e r2 7 , 2 0 1 1 , is d e n ie da s u n n e c e s s a ry . AF F I RME D.