Raashad Carter v. L. Cannedy

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Raashad Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even though Carter’s year-long placement in administrative and disciplinary segregation likely imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him to implicate a protected liberty interest, Carter failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was deprived of due process. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing combination factors used to evaluate whether challenged condition imposes an “atypical and significant hardship,” and due process requirements for when inmate faces disciplinary action); Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183 , 186 (9th Cir.1987) (setting forth due process requirements for when confidential information is used in prison disciplinary proceeding).

The record does not support Carter’s contentions regarding the district court’s…