RYANT PRATT V. J. SCHRAG, ET AL, No. 21-17055 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RYANT TRIMALE PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-17055 D.C. No. 4:21-cv-08217-JSW MEMORANDUM* J. SCHRAG; K. GISLER; R. BELL; C. PARRY; T. CAMPBELL; J. YOUNG; S. TAYMAN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Ryant Trimale Pratt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * 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). Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Pratt’s action because Pratt failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3335; Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”). AFFIRMED. 2 21-17055

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.