Abdul Lateef Mateen v. Carl Nink Ray Polanco Sherry Burright Jim Cecil

991 F.2d 803 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Abdul Lateef MATEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl NINK; Ray Polanco; Sherry Burright; Jim Cecil, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-16987. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 7, 1993. * Decided April 15, 1993. Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Abdul Lateef Mateen appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Mateen contends the defendants violated his constitutional right to due process by failing to issue him a second notice of disciplinary action when they placed him in detention a second time. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied 496 U.S. 937 (1990). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence,…