FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURT L. BURRIS, No. 08-17675
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00689-RLH-
GWF
v.
JEFFREY P. WALKER; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Curt L. Burris, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
disciplinary conviction for a charge that was not listed in the Notice of Charges
*
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).
provided to Burris prior to the hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir.
1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the due process claim because the
notice contained sufficient information to allow Burris to present a proper defense
at his disciplinary hearing. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th
Cir. 1989) (concluding that notice was adequate where it described the factual
situation that was the basis for the disciplinary charge and alerted the prisoner of
his alleged wrongdoing).
The district court properly dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim because
Burris did not allege facts showing that he was denied “the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities,” or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference
to his health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Burris’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
DS/Research 2 08-17675