Daniel Harper v. Costa, et al, No. 09-16988 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 27 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL HARPER, No. 09-16988 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02149-LKKDAD v. SGT. COSTA; MENDES, MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 10, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Daniel Harper, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by issuing him a false disciplinary violation. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. Harper s action was properly dismissed because his disciplinary violation, and the associated penalties, were reversed through the prison s administrative appeal procedure, and because Harper did not allege facts suggesting that his resulting administrative segregation imposed an atypical and significant hardship. See 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. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). Harper s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 09-16988
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
