Richard Lathan, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Rosie B. Garcia; Larry Small; J.d. Thomas, Lieutenant; W.harding; G. Bonnie Garibay; H. Bard; H.s. Ward;a. Terhune, Defendants-appellees, 132 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Richard Lathan, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in Lathan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, inter alia, violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Lathan's sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on his claim that defendants violated his due process rights during his disciplinary hearings and review of his appeals of these hearings.¹  Lathan's contention lacks merit.

On October 7, 1994, Lathan had a disciplinary hearing concerning an alleged assault on another inmate. On October 8, 1994, Lathan had a disciplinary hearing concerning an alleged assault on a prison guard. Lathan argues that defendants engaged in racial discrimination in bringing disciplinary charges, falsifying reports, and in deciding against him at both hearings. Lathan also argues that the October 7 hearing violated his rights because prison officials ignored the testimony of an inmate witness. Lathan further argues that the October 8 hearing violated his rights because prison officials failed to call a requested witness and failed to provide requested documents. Finally, Lathan argues that defendants violated his rights by denying his appeals of these claims.

Lathan presented no evidence that defendants engaged in their conduct for racially discriminatory reasons. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976). With respect to the October 7 hearing, although inmate testimony supported Lathan's contention that he had not assaulted another inmate, the record indicates that prison officials had some evidence upon which to base their finding. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). With respect to the October 8 hearing, Lathan presented no evidence that he requested documents from prison officials. Moreover, the record indicates that prison officials denied Lathan's requested witness as unnecessary in light of information already presented. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) (stating that prison officials may deny witnesses where their testimony would unduly extend the hearing or be unnecessary). Finally, because we conclude that prison officials did not violate Lathan's due process rights during his disciplinary hearings, we reject his contention that defendants violated his due process rights by denying his appeals.

Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Lathan's due process claims. See Barnett, 31 F.3d at 815.

AFFIRMED.²