Donald Davis v. J. Shartle

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2019

Docket18-16935

StatusUnpublished

This text of Donald Davis v. J. Shartle (Donald Davis v. J. Shartle) 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

Donald Davis v. J. Shartle, (9th Cir. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD LEWIS DAVIS, No. 18-16935

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00158-JGZ-BGM

v. MEMORANDUM* J. T. SHARTLE, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

District of Columbia prisoner Donald Lewis Davis appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment in his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

* 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). In his section 2241 petition, Davis argued that the Bureau of Prisons’

method of determining his security classification violates his constitutional right to

due process. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that Davis

failed to state a claim because no federal due process right is implicated by a

prison’s classification decisions. Davis filed a motion to alter or amend the district

court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s Rule 59(e) motion because, contrary

to his contention, Davis failed to demonstrate that the district court’s conclusion

was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty.,

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)); see also Hernandez v. Johnston,

833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (no federal due process right implicated by a

prison’s classification decisions).

Because the scope of this appeal is limited to review of the September 6,

2018, order denying Davis’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, we do not

address the other issues Davis raises.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16935

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD LEWIS DAVIS, No. 18-16935

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00158-JGZ-BGM

v. MEMORANDUM* J. T. SHARTLE, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

District of Columbia prisoner Donald Lewis Davis appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment in his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

* 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). In his section 2241 petition, Davis argued that the Bureau of Prisons’

method of determining his security classification violates his constitutional right to

due process. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that Davis

failed to state a claim because no federal due process right is implicated by a

prison’s classification decisions. Davis filed a motion to alter or amend the district

court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s Rule 59(e) motion because, contrary

to his contention, Davis failed to demonstrate that the district court’s conclusion

was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty.,

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)); see also Hernandez v. Johnston,

833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (no federal due process right implicated by a

prison’s classification decisions).

Because the scope of this appeal is limited to review of the September 6,

2018, order denying Davis’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, we do not

address the other issues Davis raises.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16935

Related

Frank v. Hernandez v. Denny Johnston Tom Ahearn Jim Rogers John McCain Chuck Houser Al Scamahorn Dan Snyder William Callahan Bob Benn

833 F.2d 1316 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Donald Davis v. J. Shartle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-davis-v-j-shartle-ca9-2019.