Dan Goodrick v. Terema Carlin

MEMORANDUM

Idaho state prisoner Dan Goodrick appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims arising out of his disciplinary hearing and a strip search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goodrick’s retaliation claims because Goodrick failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ decisions to discipline him did not advance legitimate correctional goals. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of retaliation claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goodrick’s due process claims because Goodrick failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in administrative segregation following disciplinary convictions implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486 , 115 S.Ct. 2293 , 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (concluding that “discipline in segregated confinement does not present the type of atypical, significant…