The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMMY RAY BROWN, No. 12-15861
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00956-MCE-
DAD
v.
G. MARSHALL; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Tommy Ray Brown 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 prison disciplinary proceeding. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261
F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s claim
alleging insufficient notice of the disciplinary charges because Brown failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the notice that he received
was constitutionally inadequate. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64
(1974) (an inmate accused of a disciplinary violation must receive “advance
written notice of the claimed violation” to give him “a chance to marshal the facts
in his defense and to clarify what the charges are”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s claim
alleging that defendants inadequately investigated his witnesses because Brown
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was
constitutionally entitled to further investigation or to staff assistance. See id. at
566, 570 (inmates in disciplinary proceedings have a limited right to call witnesses
and present evidence; only if an inmate is illiterate or the issue is complex may
staff assistance be warranted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s claim
alleging that defendants improperly relied on confidential informants because the
record contains evidence of reliability and evidence that safety concerns prevented
2 12-15861
disclosure of the informants’ names. See Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186-
87 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (explaining how reliance on unidentified inmate
informants may satisfy due process).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown’s claim
alleging that defendants falsified his disciplinary report because Brown failed to
provide any evidence supporting that claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986) (a party may prevail at summary judgment by showing that there
is an absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case).
Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on September 18, 2012, is
denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15861