Jim Davis v. Larry Smalls

MEMORANDUM

Jim Davis, a California state prisoner who is serving four consecutive life-without-parole sentences, appeals the district court’s order granting Larry Small’s (“the Warden”) motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded that claim preclusion barred Davis’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and alternatively, that Davis failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Due Process Clause. We review both conclusions de novo. Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir.2010); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir.1992). Exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we AFFIRM.

I. Background

In 2008, a sharp metal object was discovered inside a light fixture in Davis’s prison cell. Following an administrative disciplinary proceeding, Davis was convicted of possessing dangerous contraband. As a result, Davis lost his paying prison job, his ability to transfer to facilities with better programs, and some of his phone and yard privileges.

Davis appealed. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Davis filed a ha-beas action in state court, arguing that he was denied due process. Both the California…