PRATT v. HEDRICKS (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Ryant Trimale PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. HEDRICKS, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15148

Decided: September 20, 2018

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Ryant Trimale Pratt, Pro Se Allison M. Low, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ryant Trimale Pratt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation stemming from his disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pratt’s due process claim arising from a July 2013 disciplinary hearing because the result of that disciplinary hearing was overturned on appeal. See Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015) (administrative reversal may cure due process violations).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellees’ motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law