MICHAEL KELLEY V. COLETT PETERS, No. 18-35395 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JAN 4 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL D. KELLEY, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35395 D.C. No. 6:16-cv-02400-AC v. MEMORANDUM* COLETT S. PETERS, being sued in her individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted January 2, 2019** Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Michael D. Kelley, an Oregon state prisoner, 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 his confinement in administrative segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian * 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). Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Kelley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants provided insufficient notice of the reasons for retaining him in administrative segregation, or as to whether the “some evidence” standard was met. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 – 88 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that due process claims based on administrative segregation are subject to the “some evidence” standard); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 926 F.2d 800, 803 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing “indicia of reliability” of evidence); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100 – 1101 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (describing due process notice and hearing requirements in the administrative segregation context). AFFIRMED. 2 18-35395

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.