Arline v. Janda

Ninth Circuit

Arline v. Janda

667 F. App'x 951

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

DocketNo. 15-55294

StatusPublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 951 (Arline v. Janda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arline v. Janda, 667 F. App'x 951 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendant Powell’s findings were not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendant Powell’s findings were not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arline-v-janda-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack