884 F. 2d 1394 - Endreson v. State of Arizona

MEMORANDUM**

Robert Endreson appeals from the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. He seeks reversal on the following grounds:

One. The district court erred in dismissing his action because the record shows that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his classification without due process of law.

Two. The district court denied him his right to a hearing before an Article III judge by referring this matter to a magistrate.

Three. The district court denied him his right to a hearing before a three-judge panel.

Four. The district court erred by failing to rule on Endreson's motions until after it granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

We review an order granting summary judgment independently without deference to the district court's legal conclusion. United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc). We discuss each issue and the facts pertinent thereto under separate headings.

* PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Endreson contends that he was moved from minimum to maximum custody in violation of his right to procedural due process. The record shows that he was given written notice of the classification hearing and was accorded the opportunity to make a statement during the proceedings. He was reclassified because he unlawfully used a credit card while in prison. Endreson had the right to appeal the classification decision. He did not do so. Endreson received all the process he was due. See Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir.1987) (procedural due process is satisfied if a person receives notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard).

Endreson contends that it is a violation of Article III of the United States Constitution for a magistrate to rule on the merits of a complaint. The record shows that the district court ruled on each of Endreson's motions and entered the judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Thus, Endreson has failed to demonstrate a violation.

Endreson argues that he was entitled to a hearing on his complaint before a three-judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284. Section 2284 provides for a three-judge panel when expressly required by an Act of Congress to determine the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts, or the apportionment of state legislative districts. Congress has not authorized the convening of a three-judge court to consider issues presented by Endreson's complaint. Endreson was not entitled to a three-judge panel to hear this action.

ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY RULING ON ENDRESON'S MOTIONS

Endreson asserts that his motions were not ruled upon until after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The record does not support this contention. The district court ruled on each of Endreson's motions prior to granting summary judgment on August 24, 1987.

Endreson appears to argue that the court erred in failing to order the Arizona Attorney General "to investigate the case and to report the results of the investigation to the court." Appellant's Opening Brief, page 25. On January 9, 1987, the district court ordered the Arizona Attorney General to file a written report explaining "the actions complained of in the complaint." C.R. 5. On June 8, 1987, the Arizona Attorney General filed a report in response to this order. Thus, the record demonstrates that this contention is meritless.

AFFIRMED.