FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 9 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE L. BURTON, No. 13-35782
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05104-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAT GLEBE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges
Washington state prisoner Lonnie L. Burton appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Burton failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants deprived him of
due process by confining him in administrative segregation for less than two
months. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476-77 & n.9 (1983), abrogated in
part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (due process
requires (1) an informal, nonadversary evidentiary review sufficient both for the
decision that an inmate represents a security threat and the decision to confine an
inmate to administrative segregation pending completion of an investigation into
misconduct charges against him, (2) some notice of the charges against him and an
opportunity to present his views, and (3) periodic review of the confinement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Burton’s discovery
motions because Burton failed to show how the discovery he sought was relevant
or how it would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & County
of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for a
denial of a continuance for additional discovery); Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court is vested with broad discretion
to permit or deny discovery, and a decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed
except upon the clearest showing of actual and substantial prejudice).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35782