Jesse Greenberg v. Lisa Walsh

Ninth Circuit

Jesse Greenberg v. Lisa Walsh

678 F. App'x 581

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2017

Docket15-15764

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 678 F. App'x 581 (Jesse Greenberg v. Lisa Walsh) 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

Jesse Greenberg v. Lisa Walsh, 678 F. App'x 581 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Jesse Greenberg appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings and his confinement in disciplinary segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim regarding his time in disciplin *582 ary segregation because Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his segregation implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposés an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

The district court property granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim concerning his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. 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 disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

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).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Jesse Greenberg appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings and his confinement in disciplinary segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim regarding his time in disciplin *582 ary segregation because Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his segregation implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposés an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

The district court property granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim concerning his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. 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 disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

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).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 F. App'x 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-greenberg-v-lisa-walsh-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack