Audre Revis v. Ralph Diaz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 21, 2018
• Docket: 18-15151
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUDRE L. REVIS, No. 18-15151

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00378-DAD- BAM v.

RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Audre L. Revis appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

* 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). § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Revis’s deliberate indifference claims

because Revis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants disregarded

an excessive risk to Revis’s health or safety. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or

she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety).

The district court properly dismissed Revis’s due process claim because

Revis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not afforded all the

process that he was due at his disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (to satisfy due process, prison officials must provide

advance written notice of the violation, a written statement as to the evidence

relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken, and a limited right for

inmates to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in their defense); see

also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (“[T]he requirements of due

process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison

disciplinary board . . . .”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

2 18-15151 AFFIRMED.

3 18-15151