KEITH ARLINE, JR. V. G. JANDA, No. 15-55294 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEITH DUANE ARLINE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 15-55294 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02450-JLS-NLS v. MEMORANDUM* G. J. JANDA, Associate Warden; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges California state prisoner Keith Duane Arline, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process claim arising from a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th * 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). Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Arline failed to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether defendant Powell’s findings were not supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). AFFIRMED. 2 15-55294
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.
