Quackenbush
Quackenbush v. County of Santa Barbara
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Daniel Quackenbush, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his constitutional rights during his transport to and incarceration in prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Amadeo v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir.2002) (“Courts may properly exercise appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when a partial summary judgment is followed by a dismissal of all remaining claims, even if those claims are dismissed ‘with prejudice.’ ”). We review de novo, Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.1996) (summary judgment), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Quackenbush’s claims that prison officials violated his civil rights and state law in calculating the time for his release on May 9, 1998. See People v. Smith, 211 Cal.App.3d 523, 526 , 259 Cal.Rptr. 515 (1989) (citing Cal.Penal Code § 2900.5(e)) (discussing computation of release dates).