Albert Young v. Daniel J. McCarthy

50 F.3d 19 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Albert YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel J. McCARTHY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15663. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 7, 1995. * Decided March 9, 1995. Before: SNEED, POOLE, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Albert Young, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, Tipton v. University of Haw., 15 F.3d 922 , 925 (9th Cir.1994), and affirm. 3 Young contends that (1) he was denied due process in connection with his placement in administrative segregation pending investigation of a charge that he assaulted another prisoner, (2) he was…