Ricky Gray v. B. Cogdell;

09-17454Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit27 de dez. de 2010

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICKY GRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. COGDELL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17454
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02624-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS Circuit Judges.
Ricky Gray, a California prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that defendants violated
his due process rights by validating him as a prison gang member and confining
him for an indeterminate term in a security housing unit (“SHU”). The district
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
court dismissed Gray’s complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
Gray claims that defendants B. Cogdell and F. Gardner, correctional officers,
put false information regarding prison gang activity in his file, and that he has been
committed to the SHU for an indeterminate term as a result. He claims that his
confinement in the SHU constitutes “atypical and significant hardship.” See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-86, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300-02, 132 L. Ed. 2d
418 (1995). As the district court correctly noted, however, Gray failed to allege
that he was not given an administrative disciplinary hearing before being
transferred to the SHU. Gray has therefore failed to state a due process claim.
Gray’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.