Dennis Perryman v. James Deacon;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS PERRYMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES DEACON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35224
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01234-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Perryman, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v.
FILED
APR 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perryman’s due
process claim in connection with his disciplinary proceedings because, even
assuming a protected liberty interest, Perryman failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements
before imposing sanctions implicating a prisoner’s liberty interest); Koenig v.
Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (prison officials may limit
an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).
AFFIRMED.
14-35224 2

-- 2 of 2 --