Jerry B. Balisok, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Chase Riveland, Secretary Department of Corrections,defendant-appellee, 40 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1994)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Jerry B. Balisok, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in Balisok's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his Right to Privacy and his First Amendment and Due Process rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's summary judgment, see Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and we affirm.

During his incarceration at Washington State Penitentiary, Balisok wrote to former United States Senator Daniel Evans, alleging that he was erroneously convicted. Senator Evans forwarded a copy of the letter to Senator Gorton who forwarded it to defendant Riveland and asked for information relating to Balisok's case. Defendant Robinson-Martin responded to Senator Gorton's inquiry by informing him that Balisok had been convicted of attempted first degree murder and also had been charged with arson.

Balisok contends that defendants violated his Right to Privacy and his Due Process rights by improperly disclosing his criminal history information to Senator Gorton. Balisok also contends that defendants interfered with his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. These contentions lack merit.

First, Balisok's Right to Privacy claim fails because the criminal history information disclosed by Robinson-Martin was obtained from public court records. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976) (right to privacy did not protect arrestee from disclosure of record of his arrest).

Second, Balisok's Due Process claim fails because injury to reputation alone does not result in the deprivation of a liberty or a property interest protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.; Johnson v. Barker, 799 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the disclosure of Balisok's criminal history occurred as a direct result of Balisok's own request that Senator Gorton investigate Balisok's allegedly erroneous conviction. Accordingly, we find meritless Balisok's contention that defendants violated his constitutional rights by improperly disclosing his criminal history information.¹ 

AFFIRMED.