Tony Hines v. James Dzurenda ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TONY HINES,                                     No. 21-16682
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00191-APG-DJA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JAMES DZURENDA; BRIAN WILLIAMS,
    Warden; JENNIFER NASH; BEAN,
    Warden; JERRY HOWELL, Warden;
    TREADWELL; JAMES SCALLY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 14, 2023**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Nevada state prisoner Tony Hines appeals pro se from the district court’s
    summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging due process and Eighth
    Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review
    *
    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).
    de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment.
    Hamby v. Hammond, 
    821 F.3d 1085
    , 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any
    basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 
    547 F.3d 1055
    , 1058-59 (9th
    Cir. 2008). We affirm.
    Summary judgment for Treadwell was proper on Hines’s Eighth
    Amendment claim because Hines failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
    as to whether his placement in segregation for eighteen days constituted cruel and
    unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 832 (1994) (setting
    forth the requirements for an Eighth Amendment violation in the prison context);
    May v. Baldwin, 
    109 F.3d 557
    , 565 (9th Cir. 1997) (placement in disciplinary
    segregation does not violate the Eighth Amendment unless plaintiff shows serious
    deprivation and deliberate indifference); Anderson v. County of Kern, 
    45 F.3d 1310
    , 1312-15 (9th Cir. 1995) (same with administrative segregation).
    Summary judgment for Treadwell was proper on Hines’s due process claim
    because Hines failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his
    placement in segregation implicated a protected liberty interest. See Chappell v.
    Mandeville, 
    706 F.3d 1052
    , 1064 (9th Cir. 2013) (a constitutionally protected
    liberty interest implicating an inmate’s due process rights arises only when the
    action imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
    ordinary incidents of prison life”); Serrano v. Francis, 
    345 F.3d 1071
    , 1078 (9th
    2                                   21-16682
    Cir. 2003) (administrative or disciplinary segregation in and of itself does not
    implicate a protected liberty interest).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Hines’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   21-16682