Timothy Santos v. Cdcr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY MARVIN SANTOS, No. 19-15775
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02287-KJM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Marvin Santos appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
*
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).
a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Santos’s action for failure to state a
plausible federal due process claim because Santos’s claims concern interpretation
of the California Constitution, which is a matter for California courts. See
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (holding that the only federal right
at issue in the context of parole is whether minimal procedural due process
protections were met); see also Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 (1975)
(“[S]tate courts are the ultimate expositors of state law . . . .” (citations and
footnote omitted)); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (a
plaintiff may not “transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting
a violation of due process”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Santos’s fourth
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without
leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
2 19-15775
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15775