FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DEAN YANDELL, No. 13-15606
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-05811-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW L. CATE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald Dean Yandell appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated when defendants revalidated him as a gang
member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
*
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).
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Yandell’s due process claim arising
from his gang revalidation and reassignment to the security housing unit (“SHU”)
because, to the extent that Yandell demonstrated a liberty interest in avoiding
continued SHU confinement, the facts alleged by Yandell show that he received all
the process that he was due. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 228-29 (2005)
(notice and opportunity to be heard are adequate procedural safeguards for
placement in maximum custody); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (9th Cir.
2003) (prison officials must provide an inmate facing gang validation with notice
of the charges and an opportunity to present his views, and decision must be
supported by “some evidence” with sufficient indicia of reliability).
The district court properly dismissed Yandell’s First Amendment claim
challenging defendants’ confiscation of materials associated with the Aryan
Brotherhood prison gang found in Yandell’s cell because Yandell failed to allege
sufficient facts to show that defendants unreasonably impinged upon his rights of
free speech or association. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 131 (2003)
(“[F]reedom of association is among the rights least compatible with
incarceration.”); Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229 (2001) (requiring only that
the connection between the restriction and the purpose behind it not be arbitrary or
2 13-15606
irrational); see also Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129-
32 (1977) (prison officials may curtail a prisoner’s First Amendment rights if they
determine that particular expressive or associational conduct has a “likelihood of
disruption to prison order or stability, or otherwise interfere[s] with [] legitimate
penological objectives”).
The district court properly dismissed Yandell’s Eighth Amendment claim
because Yandell failed to allege sufficient facts to show that defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to Yandell’s health or safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable
under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of
confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Yandell’s request for judicial notice, filed on May 28, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15606