860 F2d 1089 St Halaire v. Gunter Aspc-F

860 F.2d 1089

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Gary ST. HALAIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Lt. GUNTER, Coordinator of Discipline at ASPC-F; Mrs.
Terry, Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee,
Defendant-Appellees.

No. 87-2233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 24, 1988.*
Decided Oct. 11, 1988.

Before SKOPIL, SCHROEDER and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.


Advertisement
view counter
1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Gary St. Halaire, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action. He contends that he was denied due process when a prison official refused to allow him to present witnesses at a disciplinary hearing. We agree with the district court that St. Halaire failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

3

Inmates may have constitutionally protected liberty interests in the proper application of state created prison regulations. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests may be created by prison rules that place substantive limitations on official discretion). We need not decide whether the Arizona regulations at issue here create liberty interests, because we conclude that the regulations were properly applied. At the disciplinary hearing, St. Hilaire admitted to being in an unauthorized housing unit. His witnesses would merely have corroborated his excuse. Thus their proffered testimony was excludable as repetitive and cumulative.

4

St. Hilaire also contends that the written reprimand he received implicates a liberty interest because it may at some undetermined time affect the length of his prison sentence. Even assuming that his punishment in some way implicated a protected interest, we conclude that St. Hilaire received due process. He received a hearing and presented testimony in his own behalf. Cf. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476 (1983) (prisoner facing administrative segregation need only receive an informal, non-adversary hearing consisting of notice of charges and an opportunity to present his views).

5

We conclude that St. Hilaire failed to allege a violation of any constitutional right. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action.

6

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4


Advertisement
view counter
**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3