Daniel Masterson v. Rosanne Campbell ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL J. MASTERSON, No. 11-15023
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00192-AK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROSANNE CAMPBELL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Daniel J. Masterson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation and due process violations by prison officials. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815
(9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the retaliation
claims because Masterson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants’ conduct was based on a retaliatory motive rather than
legitimate correctional goals. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.
1995) (plaintiff must show allegedly retaliatory action did not advance legitimate
correctional goals).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Masterson’s due
process claims because the record reflects that procedural safeguards were met and
that “some evidence” supports the prison disciplinary decisions. Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Further, the decisions did not impose an
“atypical and significant hardship.” Ghana v. Pearce, 159 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th
Cir. 1998) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)).
Masterson’s remaining contentions, including that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his requests for reconsideration, appointed counsel, and
discovery continuances, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15023