Opinion
No. 08-15556.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
March 9, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:06-CV-00233-LKK.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Edward Ontiveros appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations by prison officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ontiveros's claim that defendants violated his due process rights in two disciplinary hearings because the undisputed evidence shows that they later expunged the rules violation reports from his file and overturned all disciplinary action. See Burnsworth v. Gunderson, 179 F.3d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that expungement of disciplinary conviction from plaintiff's prison record remedied due process violation). Moreover, Ontiveros presented no evidence to raise a triable issue as to whether the informational chronos remaining in his file influenced the parole board's decisions to deny him parole in 2004 and 2006 or would be likely to influence future parole board decisions. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995) (holding that "[t]he chance that a finding of misconduct will alter the balance [at a prisoner's parole hearing] is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ontiveros's request for additional discovery under Rule 56(f) because Ontiveros did not show how allowing him additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1998) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the denial of Rule 56(f) motion and upholding denial where "appellants failed to identify facts, either discovered or likely to be discovered, that would support their § 1983 claim").
Ontiveros's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Ontiveros's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.