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 pane 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 ar 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 CE SAR R . RODRI GU EZ , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J . P U E N T E ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17290 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 2 5 8 5 - WHA 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 W i l l i a m A l s up, 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 e s arR . R odr i gue z , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng due p r o c e s s v io la tio n s in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is c o n tin u e da s s ig n m e n t to th e s e c u r ity 

# FI LED JU L 11 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17290 2 h o u s in g u n it ( “S H U ” ) b a s e do n h is r e - v a lid a tio n a s ap r is o n g an g a s s o c ia te . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . B ru ce v. Y l st , 351 F .3 d1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr ant e d s um m aryj udgm e nton R odr i gue z ’ s due p r o c e s s c la im b e c au s e , e v e n a s s u m in g th a t th e r e w a s alib e rtyin te r e s t a t s ta k e in a voi di ng c ont i nue d c onf i ne m e nti n the S H U , R odr i gue z f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne d is p u te o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rh e w a s d e n ie ddu e p r o c e s s . See W i lki nson v. A u s tin , 545 U . S . 209, 228- 29 ( 2005) ( not i c e a nd opportuni tyt o be he ar d, i nvol vi ng in f o rm a l, n o n - a d v e r s ar ia l p r o c e du r e s , ar e a d e q u a te s a f e g u ar d s f o rp la c e m e n t in m a x im u m c u s to d y ) ; B ruce , 351 F . 3d a t1287 ( pr i s on ga ng va l i da t i on de c i s i ons r e q u ir e p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls to p r o v id e a n in m a te w ith n o tic e o f th e c h ar g e s a g a in s t h im an dan o p p o rtu n i tyt o p r e s e n th i s v i e w s , a n da r e r e v i e w e du n d e rth e “ s o me e vi de nc e ” s t anda r d) . C ontr aryt o R odr i gue z ’ s c ont e nt i ons , i ti s notappr opr i a t e f or th is c o u rt to “in d e p e n d e n tlya s s e s s w itn e s s c r e d ib ility , o rr e w e ig h th e e v id e n c e .” B ruce , 351 F . 3d a t1287 . R odr i gue z ’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons , i nc l udi ng thos e c onc e rni ng any m i si dent i fi cat i on by the di stri ctcourtof R od ri gu ez as a pri son g ang “ m em ber” r a th e rth an a n “a s s o c ia te ,” a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . Is sues thatar e notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the11- 17290 3 o p e n in g b r ie f

a r e d e e m e dw a iv e d . See Sm i th v. M a rsh , 1 9 4 F .3 d1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C i r. 19 99 ). AF F I RME D.