Ronald Yandell v. Matthew Cate

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Ronald Dean Yandell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when defendants revalidated him as a gang member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yandell’s due process claim arising from his gang revalidation and reassignment to the security housing unit (“SHU”) because, to the extent that Yandell demonstrated a liberty interest in avoiding continued SHU confinement, the facts alleged by Yandell show that he received all the process that he was due. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 228-29 , 125 S.Ct. 2384 , 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (notice and opportunity to be heard are adequate procedural safeguards for placement in maximum custody); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir.2003) (prison officials must provide an inmate facing gang validation with notice of the charges and an opportunity to present his views, and decision must be supported by “some evidence” with sufficient indicia of…