Sherman P. Hawkins v. David Pentland;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHERMAN P. HAWKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID PENTLAND; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35725
D.C. No. 6:14-cv-00069-DLC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Sherman P. Hawkins, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations arising out of a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick
FILED
AUG 04 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 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hawkins’s action because Hawkins
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated his due process
rights. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due
process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision); Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements
for prison disciplinary hearing procedures).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hawkins’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hawkins’s request for appointment of counsel, filed on May 16, 2016, is
denied.
Hawkins’s request to file a substitute brief, filed on July 18, 2016, is denied
as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
15-35725 2

-- 2 of 2 --