WILL PALMER V. G. SALAZAR, No. 11-17011 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILL MOSES PALMER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-17011 D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05378-SI v. MEMORANDUM * G. R. SALAZAR; E. SANCHEZ, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Will Moses Palmer, III, a California 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 a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Palmer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was improperly denied procedural protections during his disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 564-70 (1974) (describing minimum procedural due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings and noting that the full panoply of rights due a defendant in criminal proceedings does not apply). The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending a ruling on defendants summary judgment motion. See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) ( Qualified immunity confers upon officials a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17011

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.