JESSE GREENBERG V. LISA WALSH, No. 15-15764 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESSE GREENBERG, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-15764 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00058-RCJ-VPC MEMORANDUM* LISA WALSH, Asst. Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Jesse Greenberg appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings and his confinement in disciplinary segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim regarding his time in disciplinary segregation because Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his segregation implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”). The district court property granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim concerning his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 56367 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason). 2 15-15764 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). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 15-15764
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.
