Timothy H. Johnson v. Jim Gibbons;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TIMOTHY H. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JIM GIBBONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17530
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00753-LRH-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Timothy H. Johnson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
deduction of room and board costs from his prison wages violated his due process
FILED
JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17530 2
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because the
deductions were effected by a valid act of the Nevada legislature, and the
legislative process satisfies the requirements of procedural due process. See Nev.
Rev. Stat. § 209.461(1)(b) (deductions from prison wages, pursuant to Nev. Rev.
Stat. § 209.463, is a condition of employment); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.463(1)(e)
(authorizing deductions to “offset the cost of maintaining the offender in the
institution”); Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1261 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“[G]overnmental decisions which affect large areas and are not directed at one or
a few individuals do not give rise to the constitutional procedural due process
requirements of individual notice and hearing; general notice as provided by law is
sufficient.”).
Johnson’s remaining contentions, including those regarding legislative
intent, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --