Michael Grimes v. J. BEARD, Secretary of Calif Dept of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GRIMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. BEARD, Secretary of Calif Dept of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, in his
individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-56686
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02267-ODW-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Michael Grimes appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
* 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 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56686
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Grimes’s deliberate indifference claim
because Grimes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to Grimes’s health or safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for
deliberate indifference “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which
the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference”).
The district court properly dismissed Grimes’s due process claim because
Grimes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the disciplinary decision was
not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the
disciplinary decision).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Grimes’s motion to dismiss case without prejudice is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --