Rickie Slaughter v. Jeremy Bean

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 22, 2021
• Docket: 20-15335
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKIE SLAUGHTER, No. 20-15335

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01728-APG-NJK

v. MEMORANDUM* JEREMY BEAN; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Rickie Slaughter appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026

* 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). (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Slaughter

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material as to whether prison officials failed to

afford him all of the process that he was due. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.

445, 454 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence”

supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974)

(setting forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings and

explaining that prison authorities have discretion not to call witnesses, “whether it

be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases”).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-15335