Opinion
No. 11-35609 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05147-BHS
10-17-2012
DAVID RIGGINS, AKA Dawud Halisi Malik, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAN PACHOLKE; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner David Riggins, a.k.a. Dawud Halisi Malik, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Riggins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in administrative segregation, reclassification to maximum security, and placement in the Intensive Management Unit implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (liberty interest arising from state law or policies "will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life."); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (inmate's transfer to a maximum-security facility with much less favorable conditions was "within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose"); Smith, 992 F.2d at 989 (the Constitution does not create a liberty interest in freedom from administrative segregation, nor does Washington state law); In re Dowell, 674 P.2d 666, 668-69 (Wash. 1984) (Washington state law does not create a liberty interest in freedom from reclassification).
Riggins's contentions that a state court judgment precludes defendants from relitigating due process issues and that the district court failed to rule on a pending discovery motion are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.