Case Name: Wade Kenneth MALLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.P. ROMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-26
Citations: 446 F. App'x 16
Docket Number: No. 10-16276
Parties: Wade Kenneth MALLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.P. ROMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 16–17

Head Matter:
Wade Kenneth MALLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.P. ROMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-16276.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 26, 2011.
Wade Kenneth Mallett, Folsom, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Wade Kenneth Mallett appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prison disciplinary proceeding and subsequent placement in the Security Housing Unit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mallett's due process claims because the disciplinary proceeding resulted in the loss of 360 days of good-time credit, and Mal-lett did not allege that the punishment has been invalidated. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (a claim for monetary and declaratory relief challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of good-time credits is not cognizable under § 1988).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Mallett's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AlFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.