Larry W. Kirk v. R. J. Rackley;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LARRY W. KIRK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. J. RACKLEY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15667
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01866-FCD-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Larry W. Kirk, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations arising from his continued confinement in administrative segregation.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals
FILED
JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15667 2
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152,
1157 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kirk’s due process claims because, to
the extent that he demonstrated a liberty interest in avoiding continued
confinement in administrative segregation, Kirk’s complaint demonstrates that he
was afforded all the process to which he was constitutionally entitled. See
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining due
process procedures to which prisoners with liberty interests in their placements are
entitled, and noting that some sort of periodic review of an inmate’s continued
segregated confinement is necessary), abrogated in part on other grounds by
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
Kirk’s motion for clarification of information, filed July 28, 2011, is
construed as a reply brief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --