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 unani 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 H A RO LD B. SH A M BU RG ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. R . K I R K L A N D ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15854 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - CV - 0 4 5 9 7 - J SW 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 J e f f r e yS . W hi t e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r16, 2010 ** B efo re: T A S H IM A , B E R Z O N , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rH ar ol d B . S ham bur ge rappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc 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 l a i m s f or r e t a l i a t i on and var i ous c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i ons s t e m m i ng f r om hi s pl a c e m e ntand co n t i n u i n g co n fi n em en ti n ad m i n i strat i v e seg reg at i o n b ecau se o f h i s v al i d at i o n as a 

# FI LED NO V 23 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15854 2 pr i s on gang m e m be r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o , B arne t t

v . C e ntoni , 3 1 F . 3 d8 1 3 , 8 1 5 - 1 6 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( p e rc u r i am ) , an dwe a f f irm . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dS h am b u r g e r ’s r e ta lia tio n c la im an dh is E i g h th A m en d m en tcl ai m ch al l en g i n g th e co n d i t i o n s o f h i s co n fi n em en tb ecau se h e d idn o t e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s w ith r e g ar dto th e s e c la im s . See W oodf ord v . N go , 54 8 U . S . 81 (200 6) (P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A ctre qu i re s p r is o n e r s to e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s p r io rto b r in g in g s u it) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr ant e d s um m aryj udgm e nton S ham bur ge r ’ s due proces s c l ai m chal l engi ng hi s i ni t i alpl ac em enti n adm i ni strat i ve se gregat i on as tim e - b arr e d . See M

a ldo n a do v . H

a rr is , 370 F . 3d 945, 954 ( 9th C i r . 2004) (C al i forni a per sonal i nj ury s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s app l i es t o sec t i on 19 83 ac t i on s) ; E llio tt v . C ityo

f U n io n C ity , 2 5 F .3 d8 0 0 , 8 0 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( u n d e rC a lif o rn ia law , s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s to lle df

o rtw o y e ar s f

o rp r is o n e r s ) . 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 S h am b u rg er ’s c la im th a t h is r e v a lid a tio n a s an a c tiv e m e m b e ro f th e B la c kG u e rr illaF am ily pri son g ang i n 2 00 6 v i ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s, because the re val i dat i on w as base d o n “ som e e vi dence. ” See B ru ce v. Y l st , 35 1 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 87 -88 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( pri son g ang v al i dat i on proceedi ng subj ec tt o “ som e e vi dence” s t andard).09- 15854 3 S h a m b u r g e r ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s ar e u np e r s u a s iv e . W e c o n s tru e S h a m b u r g e r ’s m o tio n f o rju d ic ia l n o tic e a s c ita tio n s to s up p le m e n ta l au th o r itie s . See F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 ( j) . A F F I R M E D .