Wade Mallett v. R. Roman

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WADE KENNETH MALLETT, No. 10-16276
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02309-FCD-
DAD
v.
R. P. ROMAN; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Wade Kenneth Mallett appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations in connection with his prison disciplinary proceeding and
subsequent placement in the Security Housing Unit. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th
Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mallett’s due process claims because
the disciplinary proceeding resulted in the loss of 360 days of good-time credit,
and Mallett did not allege that the punishment has been invalidated. See Edwards
v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997) (a claim for monetary and declaratory
relief challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of
good-time credits is not cognizable 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).
Mallett’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16276