Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides That Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except when Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel, 133 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1997)Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 1997.** Decided Dec. 17, 1997.
Before: SNEED, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Jim Oram, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of procedural due process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 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.
Here, Oram contends that he was denied procedural due process when he was not allowed to call a witness at his disciplinary hearing.2 Because the hearing officer had a positive result on a drug screen, because Oram was able to testify at the hearing, and because the witness Oram wanted to call to the hearing was not a medical professional, we conclude that Oram was not deprived of any procedural right. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (stating that prison officials only need "some evidence" upon which to base a finding of guilty); 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).3
We also conclude that Oram failed to present any evidence that prison officials violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3
Because the record contains an envelope post-marked April 11, 1997 attached to Oram's notice of appeal, we conclude that Oram's notice of appeal was timely filed. See Koch v. Ricketts, 68 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 1995)
Insofar as Oram contends that the prison's general procedures concerning disciplinary hearings violate the Due Process Clause, we reject his claim because it was not raised before the district court. See International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20 v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1985)
Because we conclude that Oram was denied none of his procedural rights, we need not decide whether he was deprived of a liberty interest
Given our disposition of this appeal, we do not consider the applicability, if any, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), to this appeal