Hodges v. Jermyn

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: May 20, 2015
• Docket: 66437
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

systems); NDOC AR 740 (setting forth the three-step grievance process). Next, summary judgment on appellant's remaining counts was appropriate as appellant either failed to state cognizable causes of action under the constitutional amendments cited or failed to present evidence sufficient to support the elements of his claims. Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1030-31 (in order to overcome a properly supported summary judgment motion, "the non-moving party may not rest upon general allegations and conclusions, but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set forth specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual issue" (quotation omitted)); Pressler v. City of Reno, 118 Nev. 506, 510, 50 P.3d 1096, 1098 (2002) ("The protections of due process only attach when there is a deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest"); see Angel v. Cruse, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 25, 321 P.3d 895, 898 (2014) (setting forth the elements necessary to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (noting requirements for a deliberate indifference to safety claim); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S., 215, 224-25 (1976) (recognizing that a prisoner has no constitutionally protected interest in avoiding prison transfers); O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 326 (9th 1996) (noting that a prison need not treat all mail sent to government agencies and officials as legal mail). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A »c4e)a., cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Steven Bradley Hodges Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF 3 NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4094