Manuel Parejo v. James E. Thatcher John Doe Peterson Michael Watkins Lieutenant Lake

104 F.3d 365 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Manuel PAREJO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. THATCHER; John Doe Peterson; Michael Watkins; Lieutenant Lake, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-35425. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 16, 1996. * Decided Dec. 20, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Manuel Parejo, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Parejo alleged that he was placed in administrative segregation for retaliatory reasons, in violation of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his right to due process, and that he was denied access to the courts for ten days. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm. 3…