Summary
finding the district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because the deductions for room and board were effected by a valid act of the Nevada legislature, and the legislative process satisfies the requirements of procedural due process
Summary of this case from Adeyinka v. Norcor Corrs.Opinion
No. 10-17530 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00753-LRH-RAM
07-11-2012
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Timothy H. Johnson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the deduction of room and board costs from his prison wages violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because the deductions were effected by a valid act of the Nevada legislature, and the legislative process satisfies the requirements of procedural due process. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.461(1)(b) (deductions from prison wages, pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.463, is a condition of employment); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.463(1)(e) (authorizing deductions to "offset the cost of maintaining the offender in the institution"); Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257, 1261 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[G]overnmental decisions which affect large areas and are not directed at one or a few individuals do not give rise to the constitutional procedural due process requirements of individual notice and hearing; general notice as provided by law is sufficient.").
Johnson's remaining contentions, including those regarding legislative intent, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.