Raashad Carter v. L. Cannedy;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable J. Clifford Wallace, United States Senior Circuit Judge**
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAASHAD CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. CANNEDY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16308
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02381-JCW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
J. Clifford Wallace, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 12, 2013***
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Raashad Carter appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his
FILED
APR 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16308 2
due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even though
Carter’s year-long placement in administrative and disciplinary segregation likely
imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him to implicate a protected liberty
interest, Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he
was deprived of due process. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th
Cir. 2003) (discussing combination factors used to evaluate whether challenged
condition imposes an “atypical and significant hardship,” and due process
requirements for when inmate faces disciplinary action); Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831
F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth due process requirements for when
confidential information is used in prison disciplinary proceeding).
The record does not support Carter’s contentions regarding the district
court’s alleged error in pre-judging the case or ignoring Carter’s arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --