Pablo Hernandez Holguin v. R. WICKS, Correctional Lieutenant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PABLO HERNANDEZ HOLGUIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R. WICKS, Correctional Lieutenant,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-17163
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00346-DAD-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Pablo Hernandez Holguin appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he
was denied due process during a prison disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-
* 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
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-17163
motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San
Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Wicks
because Holguin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Wicks failed to afford him all of the process that he was due. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements in
prison disciplinary proceedings and explaining that prison authorities have
discretion not to call witnesses, “whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or
the hazards presented in individual cases”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --