David Scott Harrison v. J. Shaffer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID SCOTT HARRISON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. SHAFFER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-17409
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-04454-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Scott Harrison appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations arising out of his parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-17409
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d
1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrison’s action because Harrison
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim. See
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (a federal due process claim in the
parole context requires only that prisoner be provided with an opportunity to be
heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harrison’s motion
for reconsideration because Harrison failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
Harrison’s request for appointment of counsel and trial by jury, set forth in
the opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --