Jesse Greenberg v. Lisa Walsh ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE GREENBERG, No. 15-15764
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00058-RCJ-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LISA WALSH, Asst. Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jesse Greenberg appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings and his confinement
in disciplinary segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due
process claim regarding his time in disciplinary segregation because Greenberg
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his segregation
implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84
(1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint
imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life”).
The district court property granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due
process claim concerning his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a
protected liberty interest, Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some
evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-
67 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary
proceedings); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison
officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate
penological reason).
2 15-15764
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15764