Audre L. Revis v. RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDRE L. REVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15151
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00378-DAD-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Audre L. Revis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
* 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 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15151
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Revis’s deliberate indifference claims
because Revis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants disregarded
an excessive risk to Revis’s health or safety. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or
she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety).
The district court properly dismissed Revis’s due process claim because
Revis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not afforded all the
process that he was due at his disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (to satisfy due process, prison officials must provide
advance written notice of the violation, a written statement as to the evidence
relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken, and a limited right for
inmates to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in their defense); see
also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (“[T]he requirements of due
process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison
disciplinary board . . . .”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15151
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --