DAVID RIGGINS, AKA Dawud Halisi Malik v. Dan Pacholke;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID RIGGINS, AKA Dawud Halisi
Malik,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAN PACHOLKE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35609
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05147-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner David Riggins, a.k.a. Dawud Halisi Malik,
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-35609 2
§ 1291. We review de novo, Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Riggins
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in
administrative segregation, reclassification to maximum security, and placement in
the Intensive Management Unit implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (liberty interest arising from state law or
policies “will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes
atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents
of prison life.”); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (inmate’s transfer to
a maximum-security facility with much less favorable conditions was “within the
normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to
impose”); Smith, 992 F.2d at 989 (the Constitution does not create a liberty interest
in freedom from administrative segregation, nor does Washington state law); In re
Dowell, 674 P.2d 666, 668-69 (Wash. 1984) (Washington state law does not create
a liberty interest in freedom from reclassification).
Riggins’s contentions that a state court judgment precludes defendants from
relitigating due process issues and that the district court failed to rule on a pending
discovery motion are unpersuasive.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-35609 3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --