Garcia

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff, Benito Arencia Garcia, sued Defendants, who are prison officials, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . He sought damages and an injunction directing Defendants to remove the “R” suffix from his custody designation. 1 The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, and Plaintiff appeals. On de novo review, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), we affirm.

A. Due Process

Plaintiffs primary argument is that Defendants’ imposition of the “R” suffix deprived him of a protected liberty interest and, accordingly, implicated the Due Process Clause. He relies on Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 830 (9th Cir.1997).

Assuming — without deciding — that Neal controls and that the imposition of the “R” suffix created a liberty interest, the district court still did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendants. As the district court noted, “plaintiff has received plenty of due process” in this case. In Neal , this court held that, when the Due Process Clause is implicated by the imposition of a “sex-offender” designation, the inmate to whom the designation is applied “is entitled to a hearing at which he must be allowed to call witnesses and…