FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD B. SHAMBURGER, No. 09-15854
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-CV-04597-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. KIRKLAND; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Harold B. Shamburger appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for
retaliation and various constitutional violations stemming from his placement and
continuing confinement in administrative segregation because of his validation as a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
prison gang member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shamburger’s retaliation claim and his
Eighth Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his confinement because
he did not exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to these claims. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (Prison Litigation Reform Act requires
prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s due
process claim challenging his initial placement in administrative segregation as
time-barred. See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004)
(California personal injury statute of limitations applies to section 1983 actions);
Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1994) (under California
law, statute of limitations tolled for two years for prisoners).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shamburger’s
claim that his revalidation as an active member of the Black Guerrilla Family
prison gang in 2006 violated his due process rights, because the revalidation was
based on “some evidence.” See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir.
2003) (prison gang validation proceeding subject to “some evidence” standard).
2 09-15854
Shamburger’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We construe Shamburger’s motion for judicial notice as citations to
supplemental authorities. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).
AFFIRMED.
3 09-15854