SHERMAN HAWKINS V. DAVID PENTLAND, No. 15-35725 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHERMAN P. HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 15-35725 D.C. No. 6:14-cv-00069-DLC v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID PENTLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Sherman P. Hawkins, a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising out of a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick * 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). v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hawkins’s action because Hawkins failed to allege facts sufficient to show that 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 the disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary hearing procedures). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hawkins’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Hawkins’s request for appointment of counsel, filed on May 16, 2016, is denied. Hawkins’s request to file a substitute brief, filed on July 18, 2016, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35725
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.
