James H. Takechi v. G. ADAME, Correctional Officer; J. TYREE, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES H. TAKECHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
G. ADAME, Correctional Officer; J.
TYREE, Correctional Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16583
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00913-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
James H. Takechi, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process
claim in connection with his re-validation as an associate of a prison gang. We
FILED
MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bruce v. Ylst, 351
F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Takechi
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he did not receive
the process he was due, or as to whether his re-validation was not supported by
“some evidence.” See Castro v. Terhune, 712 F.3d 1304, 1307, 1314-15 (9th Cir.
2013) (discussing the “some evidence” requirement); Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287-88
(explaining the due process requirements for gang validation in the prison context).
We reject as without merit Takechi’s contentions regarding contraband
watch allegations in the operative complaint.
Takechi’s request for a list of district court documents, filed on October 3,
2014, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
14-16583 2

-- 2 of 2 --