NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD LYNN STAGGS, No. 20-17317
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02843-KJM-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
P. KELLY, Correctional Sergeants; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald Lynn Staggs appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and
conspiracy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113,
1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 dismissed Staggs’s due process claims because
Staggs failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied any procedural
protections that were due, or that the loss of any privileges implicated a
constitutionally protected liberty interest. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
563-71 (1974) (due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings);
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (under the Due Process
Clause, a prisoner may challenge a state disciplinary action only if it “deprives or
restrains a state-created liberty interest in some ‘unexpected manner’” or “imposes
some ‘atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life’” (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995))).
To the extent Staggs alleged a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3),
the district court properly dismissed the claim because Staggs failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that defendants conspired to violate his civil rights. See Crowe
v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements
of a § 1983 conspiracy claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-17317