FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DEMETRIUS BAILEY, No. 08-55463
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00225-SJO-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. D. COX, Lieutenant; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Demetrius Bailey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations arising from a disciplinary proceeding and placement in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
segregated housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds on Bailey’s claims against defendant Cox because the law was
not clearly established that the conditions to which Bailey was exposed in
segregated housing imposed an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081 (9th
Cir. 2003).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bailey’s claims
against the remaining defendants because Bailey failed to raise a triable issue as to
whether these defendants proximately caused the injury of which Bailey
complains. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person
deprives another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he
does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to
perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of
which the plaintiff complains.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
(emphasis in original).
Bailey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
/Research 2 08-55463