Opinion
No. 09-15261.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed August 26, 2010.
Randy Scott Bailey, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Daniel Patrick Schaack, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:04-CV-01175-MHM-MEA.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Randy Bailey, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for Defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Defendants are entitled qualified immunity because Bailey's right to due process before assignment to the Security Maximum Unit was not clearly established at the time he was in the Unit. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005) (holding that assignment to a supermax facility can invoke a liberty interest and noting, in 2005, that "Courts of Appeals have not reached consistent conclusions for identifying the baseline from which to measure what is atypical and significant in any particular prison system"); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (holding that without atypical and significant hardship, due process is not violated).