Kelly Koerner v. James Cox

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KELLY KOERNER, No. 14-15159
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00116-LRH-
VPC
v.
JAMES GREG COX; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kelly Koerner, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. We have
*
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). Accordingly, Koerner’s
motion for telephonic appearance at oral argument, filed September 17, 2014 is
denied.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nevada Dep’t of Corr.
v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Clark regarding
Koerner’s due process claim in connection with his disciplinary proceedings and
disciplinary segregation term because, even assuming a protected liberty interest,
Koerner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Clark
violated his due process rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-67
(1974) (setting forth due process requirements before imposing sanctions
implicating a prisoner’s liberty interest); Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063,
1070-71 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to comply with prison regulations does not amount
to a constitutional violation); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992)
(per curiam) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if
they have a legitimate penological reason).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Cox and Del
Porto because Koerner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether these defendants were the cause of any constitutional violations. See Bd.
of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70 (1972) (procedural protections of due
process clause are triggered only when there is a cognizable liberty or property
interest at stake); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225-27 (1976) (inmates have no
2 14-15159
general protected liberty interest in being incarcerated at a particular prison);
Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]o find a
violation of a state-created liberty interest the hardship imposed on the prisoner
must be atypical and significant . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining causal requirement under § 1983).
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)
(per curiam).
We reject Koerner’s contentions concerning the mediation program, the
allegations of improper conduct by the Magistrate Judge, and the allegedly pending
motions.
Koerner’s “Motion for Production of Video and Audio Recording of
April 24, 2012, Settlement Conference,” and “Motion for Production of
Ombudsman Contract,” both filed August 11, 2014, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15159