From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 23, 1998
142 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1998)

Opinion


142 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1998) Darrell Rena JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-16695. No. CV-93-03885-DLJ United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit April 23, 1998

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted April 20, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BRUNETTI, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit JJ.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Darrell Rena Jones, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Because Jones's Fifth Amendment claim was abandoned in the district court, we decline to address it on appeal. See Brogan v. San Mateo County, 901 F.2d 762, 765 (9th Cir.1990). Assuming that Jones did not abandon his Fifth Amendment claim, he failed to present evidence that he had a reasonable belief that information obtained during the debriefing process would be used in a criminal prosecution. See United States v. Rendahl, 746 F.2d 553, 555 (9th Cir.1984).

Jones was identified as an affiliate of a prison gang and placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") at Pelican Bay State Prison in 1991. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence relied upon by prison officials had sufficient indicia of reliability to support their conclusion that Jones was a prison gang affiliate. See Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, Jones's request for oral argument is denied. We grant Jones's motion to file an untimely reply brief and have considered the "response to statements made by the appellees brief" filed January 17, 1996.


Summaries of

Jones v. Marshall

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 23, 1998
142 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1998)
Case details for

Jones v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:Darrell Rena JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 23, 1998

Citations

142 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 1998)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Conway

In Jackson v. Gomez, the prisoner-plaintiff was incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (“CSP”) and was a…

Low v. City of Sacramento

A court may, however, consider judicially noticeable documents in assessing the running of the statute of…