DAVID RIGGINS V. DAN PACHOLKE, No. 11-35609 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID RIGGINS, AKA Dawud Halisi Malik, No. 11-35609 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05147-BHS Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM * v. DAN PACHOLKE; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 9, 2012 ** Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner David Riggins, a.k.a. Dawud Halisi Malik, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review de novo, Smith v. Noonan, 992 F.2d 987, 989 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Riggins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his placement in administrative segregation, reclassification to maximum security, and placement in the Intensive Management Unit implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (liberty interest arising from state law or policies will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. ); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (inmate s transfer to a maximum-security facility with much less favorable conditions was within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose ); Smith, 992 F.2d at 989 (the Constitution does not create a liberty interest in freedom from administrative segregation, nor does Washington state law); In re Dowell, 674 P.2d 666, 668-69 (Wash. 1984) (Washington state law does not create a liberty interest in freedom from reclassification). Riggins s contentions that a state court judgment precludes defendants from relitigating due process issues and that the district court failed to rule on a pending discovery motion are unpersuasive. 2 11-35609 AFFIRMED. 3 11-35609
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.
