The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-17675•Curt L. Burris v. Jeffrey P. Walker;
08-17675Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 8, 2010
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURT L. BURRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY P. WALKER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17675
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00689-RLH-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Curt L. Burris, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
disciplinary conviction for a charge that was not listed in the Notice of Charges
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
DS/Research 08-17675 2
provided to Burris prior to the hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.
1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the due process claim because the
notice contained sufficient information to allow Burris to present a proper defense
at his disciplinary hearing. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th
Cir. 1989) (concluding that notice was adequate where it described the factual
situation that was the basis for the disciplinary charge and alerted the prisoner of
his alleged wrongdoing).
The district court properly dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim because
Burris did not allege facts showing that he was denied “the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities,” or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference
to his health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Burris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.