Court Opinion

ID: 3182552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-03-03 21:06:51.742211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:59.168995
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 03 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES H. TAKECHI,                                No. 14-16583

               Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00913-AWI-
                                                 DLB
 v.

G. ADAME, Correctional Officer; J.               MEMORANDUM*
TYREE, Correctional Officer,

               Defendants - Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 24, 2016**

Before:        LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

      James H. Takechi, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process

claim in connection with his re-validation as an associate of a prison gang. We

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bruce v. Ylst, 351
F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Takechi

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he did not receive

the process he was due, or as to whether his re-validation was not supported by

“some evidence.” See Castro v. Terhune, 712 F.3d 1304, 1307, 1314-15 (9th Cir.

2013) (discussing the “some evidence” requirement); Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287-88

(explaining the due process requirements for gang validation in the prison context).

      We reject as without merit Takechi’s contentions regarding contraband

watch allegations in the operative complaint.

      Takechi’s request for a list of district court documents, filed on October 3,

2014, is denied as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    14-16583