FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN EDWARD MITCHELL, No. 12-56316
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02048-ABC-SH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. MARSHALL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John Edward Mitchell appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his due process rights in connection with his disciplinary
hearings and confinement in the security housing unit (“SHU”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s damages claims against
defendants in their official capacities because those claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir.
2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against state officials in their
official capacity).
The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s due process claim regarding
his disciplinary hearings and confinement in the SHU because, even assuming
Mitchell had a liberty interest in avoiding SHU confinement, the allegations in the
complaint, and attachments thereto, indicate that Mitchell received all the process
he was due. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (“[T]he
requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by
the prison disciplinary board . . . .”); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70
(1974) (setting forth the minimum due process required when a prisoner faces
disciplinary charges).
The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s claim regarding his right to
appeal his disciplinary finding because Mitchell had no constitutional entitlement
to an inmate appeals process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
2 12-56316
2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance
procedure.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be
futile).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-56316