KENNETH WILLIAMS V. ODOC, No. 19-35404 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-35404 D.C. No. 6:17-cv-01695-AA v. MEMORANDUM* OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RICK COURSEY, Superintendent at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution (EOCI); LEONARD WILLIAMSON, Inspector General at ODOC; MICHAEL F. GOWER, Assistant Administrator at ODOC; MICHAEL POPE, Correctional Officer at ODOC; DAVID POWELL, Disciplinary Hearings Officer at EOCI, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. * 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). Oregon state prisoner Kenneth Gregory Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Williams’s due process claim because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the discipline imposed infringed on a protected liberty interest, or whether the discipline lacked any evidentiary basis. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither invariably extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); Burnsworth v. Gunderson, 179 F.3d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 1999) (no due process violation unless “a conviction was totally unsupported by evidence”). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Williams’s Eighth Amendment claim because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ conduct deprived him of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 19-35404 We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions that the discovery process was unfair. AFFIRMED. 3 19-35404

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.