Alfredo Roman v. Randy Blades

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO ROMAN, No. 16-35575
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00241-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RANDY BLADES, Warden, Sued in their
individual and official capacity and their
successors in office; BRIAN
KINGENSMITH, Sued in their individual
and official capacity and their successors in
office,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Roman, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
*
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).
claims arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Nordstrom v.
Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Roman’s due process claim regarding
the payment of restitution because Roman failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that he was not provided with an adequate pre-deprivation hearing under Mathews
v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053, 1057
(9th Cir. 2015) (noting that inmate’s account funds are a protected property interest
and describing the Mathews balancing test to determine “whether a pre-deprivation
hearing is required and what specific procedures must be employed at that hearing
given the particularities of the deprivation”).
The district court properly dismissed Roman’s due process claims arising
from his placement in disciplinary and administrative segregation because Roman
failed to allege facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest or an “atypical
and significant hardship.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a
prisoner has no protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither
extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant
hardship”); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (due
process procedural protections “adhere only when the disciplinary action
implicates a protected liberty interest”).
2 16-35575
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-35575