Ryant Trimale Pratt v. J. Schrag; K. Gisler; R. Bell; C. Parry; T. Campbell; J. Young; S. Tayman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. SCHRAG; K. GISLER; R. BELL; C.
PARRY; T. CAMPBELL; J. YOUNG; S.
TAYMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-17055
D.C. No. 4:21-cv-08217-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ryant Trimale Pratt appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
* 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).
FILED
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-17055
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pratt’s action because Pratt failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim. See Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 15, § 3335; Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a constitutionally
protected liberty interest arises when a restraint imposes an “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --