James Hinkley v. Eldon Vail

MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner James Mark Hinkley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of his placement in an 84-hour contraband watch. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1057, n. 1 (9th Cir.2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 562 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper on Hinkley’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Arlow, De-Mars, and Carlsen on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable prison official that placement in an 84-hour contraband watch qnd warrantless searches for contraband, after discovery of contraband following an extended family visit were unlawful. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 , 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hinkley’s claims against defendants Vail and Russell because Hinkley failed to raise a triable dispute as…