John Catanzarite v. R. Horel , 453 F. App'x 723 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN JOSEPH CATANZARITE, No. 10-16277
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00677-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. HOREL, Acting Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John Joseph Catanzarite appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his due process rights in connection with his indeterminate
detention in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.
2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Catanzarite’s
claim that his indeterminate SHU detention violated his due process rights because
prison officials afforded Catanzarite all of the process he was due under the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01,
1104 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining due process procedures to which prisoners with
liberty interests in their placements are entitled, and noting that while some sort of
periodic review of an inmate’s continued segregated confinement is necessary, this
review does not require the submission of additional evidence), abrogated in part
on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Bruce, 351
F.3d at 1287 (holding that SHU confinement that manifests an “administrative
strategy designed to preserve order in the prison and protect the safety of all
inmates” need only be supported by “some evidence,” and noting that “the
assignment of inmates within the California prisons is essentially a matter of
administrative discretion” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider Catanzarite’s contentions concerning alleged state-law
claims, which are raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co.
of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
2 10-16277
Catanzarite’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-16277