# Tommy Brown v. G. Marshall > Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 20, 2013 · 538 F. App'x 825 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3065587 ## Case - **Full name:** Tommy Ray BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. MARSHALL; Et Al., DefendantsAppellees - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - **Decided:** August 20, 2013 - **Citations:** 538 F. App'x 825 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Schroeder, Graber, Paez - **Nature of suit:** Prisoner - **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3065587 ## Opinion text FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOMMY RAY BROWN, No. 12-15861 Plaintiff -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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3065587. Public record. Not legal advice.