Ryant Trimale Pratt v. B. HEDRICKS, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYANT TRIMALE PRATT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
B. HEDRICKS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15148
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01129-JD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ryant Trimale Pratt appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process
violation stemming from his disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.
* 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
SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15148
2000) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pratt’s due process claim arising from a
July 2013 disciplinary hearing because the result of that disciplinary hearing was
overturned on appeal. See Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015)
(administrative reversal may cure due process violations).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellees’ motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --