Case Name: Carolyn Kaye FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-18
Citations: 84 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 03-16175
Parties: Carolyn Kaye FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 849–849

Head Matter:
Carolyn Kaye FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry STEWART; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-16175.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
Carolyn Kaye Ferguson, ASPCP — Arizona State Prison Complex Perryville, Goodyear, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kelley J. Morrissey, AGAZ — Office of the Arizona Attorney General (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Carolyn Kaye Ferguson appeals pro se summary judgment for defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated her procedural due process rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ferguson's procedural due process claim because she failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the prison's "controlled movement" policy violates any recognized liberty interest. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).
We decline to consider Ferguson's apparent retaliation claim raised for the first time in her reply brief. See United States v. Montoya, 45 F.3d 1286, 1300 (9th Cir. 1995).
Ferguson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.