Arline v. Janda

MEMORANDUM ** California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendant Powell’s findings were not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.