Elder Zacarias-Lopez v. Brian Williams ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELDER ZACARIAS-LOPEZ, No. 14-17576
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00548-JAD-
GWF
v.
BRIAN WILLIAMS; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Elder Zacarias-Lopez, a Nevada 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 arising from disciplinary proceedings in which Zacarias-Lopez was
found guilty of possessing contraband. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Zacarias-
Lopez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the hearing
officer’s denial of additional witnesses violated his due process rights. See Bostic
v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1274 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that a prison disciplinary
board may deny redundant witnesses and rejecting a due process challenge where
an inmate failed to inform the board of the nature of each witness’s testimony).
Moreover, sufficient evidence supported the hearing officer’s finding of guilt. See
Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)
(“[T]he relevant question [under the due process clause’s ‘some evidence’
standard] is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”).
We do not address Zacharias-Lopez’s argument, raised for the first time on
appeal, that the charging officer should have been called to testify before the
disciplinary board. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010)
(arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17576