Lonnie Donell Perkins v. R. CRUM, Correctional Officer;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Perkins consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LONNIE DONELL PERKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. CRUM, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16903
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01115-GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 8, 2012***
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lonnie Donell Perkins appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16903 2
process and Eighth Amendment violations in connection with his prison gang
validation and placement in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Perkins’s due process claim because
Perkins failed to allege facts showing that he was denied due process when he was
validated as a gang member. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.
2003) (prison gang validation decisions need only be supported by “some
evidence,” and prison officials need only provide the inmate with some notice of
the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views).
The district court properly dismissed Perkins’s Eighth Amendment claim
regarding conditions in the SHU because “administrative segregation . . . is within
the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence.” Anderson v.
County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995) (conditions associated with
administrative segregation, such as confinement in a single cell for most of the day,
did not violate the Eighth Amendment).
Perkins’s request for judicial notice, received on May 3, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --