N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PHILLIP C . C OLLIC OTT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. SNAKE RIVER DEPAR TM ENT OF C ORREC TIONS ADM INISTR ATION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-35272 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01443-B R M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B ER ZON, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc uit Judge s . Ore gon sta

te prisone r Phillip C . C ollic ott a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l c la im s a rising from

a disc iplina

ry he aring. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C .



# FIL ED OCT 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Le mirev . C al. De p’t of C orr. &Re hab. , 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th C ir. 2013), a n d we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on C o llic ott’ s due proc e s s c la im s pre m ise d on his disc iplina ry proc e e dings be c a

use C ollic ott fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m at e ria l fa c t a s to whe t he r he re c e ive d the prope r proc e d ura l sa fe gua

rds, a n d whe the r som e e vide nc e supporte d the he aring offic e r’ s findings. Se e Supe rinte nde nt v . Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985) (re quire m e nts of due proc e ss a

re satisfie d if “ som e e vide nc e ” supports the disc iplina ry de c ision); W olff v . Mc Donne ll , 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (se tting forth due

proc e ss re quire m e nts during a p rison disc iplina ry proc e e ding); se e also C

ousins v . Loc k

y e r , 568 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th C ir. 2009) (fa ilure to follow interna l prison policy doe s not a

m ount to a

c onstitutiona

l viola t ion). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on C o llic ott’ s due proc e s s c la im s re ga

rding re duc tion in his inc e ntive -le ve l c la ssific ation a nd c om pe nsation for his work be c a use C ollic ott fa ile d to ra ise a ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the se a c tions we re im pose d a s disc iplinefor the offe nse found. Se e Sandin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty inte re st a rise s only whe n

a re stra int im

pose s a n “ aty pic a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship on the

inm ate in re lation to the

ordina ry inc i de nts of prison

1 4 - 3 5 2 7 2 2life ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on C o llic ott’ s e qua l prote c tion c la im be c a

use C ollic ott fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s inte ntiona lly and without a

rat iona l ba sis tre ate d diffe re ntly tha n any sim ila rly situa te d inm ate . Se e N

. Pac i fic a LLC v . C ity of Pac ific a , 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th C ir. 2008) (e le m e nts of e qua l prote c tion c la im ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing C o llic ott’ s m otion for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use C ollic o tt fa ile d to de m onstra te e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se e C

ano v . Tay lor , 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th C ir. 2014) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nts for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 5 2 7 2 3