Case Name: Samuel Scott JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill SLAUGHTER, Director, Department of Corrections; Diana Leibinger-Koch, Chief Legal Council for Department of Corrections; Kathy Matson, Crime Victim Compensation Supervisor, Department of Justice Board of Crime Control, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-18
Citations: 283 F. App'x 460
Docket Number: No. 06-35306
Parties: Samuel Scott JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill SLAUGHTER, Director, Department of Corrections; Diana Leibinger-Koch, Chief Legal Council for Department of Corrections; Kathy Matson, Crime Victim Compensation Supervisor, Department of Justice Board of Crime Control, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ , District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 460–460

Head Matter:
Samuel Scott JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill SLAUGHTER, Director, Department of Corrections; Diana Leibinger-Koch, Chief Legal Council for Department of Corrections; Kathy Matson, Crime Victim Compensation Supervisor, Department of Justice Board of Crime Control, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-35306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2008.
Filed June 18, 2008.
Samuel Scott Johnson, Crossroads Correctional Center, Shelby, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Colleen Ambrose, B. Joan Hunter, Esq., Anthony Johnstone, Esq., Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ , District Judge.
The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southem District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Samuel Johnson appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his claim that the defendants violated his due process rights by deducting 15% of his prison wages for the Crime Victims Compensation and Assistance Program without crediting those payments to his court-ordered restitution obligations. The facts are known to the parties and need not be repeated here.
Johnson is unable to establish that he had a constitutionally protected property interest in his prison wages while he was employed in a non-federally certified program. A state may create a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest "if it places substantive limitations on the exercise of official discretion." Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir.1993). Montana Code section 53-30-132 does not provide substantive limitations on the Department of Corrections' exercise of discretion when it comes to wages paid to inmates who are not employed in a federally certified program. We also find that there is no support for a traditional "old property" right in the amount of wages earned while at prison. See Schneider v. California Dep't of Corrs., 151 F.3d 1194, 1200-01 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.