James Michael Myron, and James M. Landsberger Dwayne Deluna Rick Cesaro v. Cal Terhune Gary Lindsey G.E. Harris Edward L. Ylst Alfonso K. Fillion D.A. Mayle Carl Larsen A.A. Lamarque P. Hamilton A. Solis J. Basso P. Mandeville P. Carillo A. Alexander R. Padilla S. Shipman P. Marriott Don Chesterman John H. Burk R. Peralez B. White Burke C. Pickering Duck Rita Clayton J. Thompson Smith C. Moreno Tann v. Barron Rings Hill Davis Kilpatrick E. Donnelly Puig Davis, Dr. M.S. Madison Kuenzi, Dr. Parkinson, Dr. Wittenberg, Dr.
Docket: 04-15770
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 6, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
James Myron appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims regarding prison conditions by the district court. He contends that state regulations on prison administration create enforceable liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment and also raises an Eighth Amendment claim. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and upholds the dismissal. Myron's case, filed in December 1999 with other plaintiffs, targeted correctional officers and medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. The district court's review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A led to the conclusion that prison regulations related to inmate classification do not establish cognizable liberty interests under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. Myron argues this finding is incorrect. The opinion discusses the evolving standard for determining state-created liberty interests, referencing the Supreme Court's clarification in Sandin v. Conner, which confines protected liberty interests to situations involving atypical and significant hardships compared to standard prison life. Sandin established that a prisoner's discipline in segregated confinement does not constitute an atypical and significant deprivation that could create a liberty interest. This principle applies to Myron's classification at a 'level IV' prison, which does not significantly differ from a 'level III' prison or the conditions seen in administrative segregation and protective custody. There is no evidence that Myron's classification will affect the duration of his sentence. The court referenced Valdez v. Rosenbaum, clarifying that while Sandin's reasoning applies to convicted prisoners, it does not overrule the methodology established in Hewitt v. Helms regarding pretrial detainees. Myron's argument that a California regulation governing prison publications creates a liberty interest is rejected, as the regulation's restrictions do not amount to atypical deprivations, consistent with Sandin’s directive against judicial interference in prison management. Finally, Myron's claim that his classification violated the Eighth Amendment fails because classification alone does not inflict pain as defined by the Eighth Amendment. The court affirmed the decision, noting that Myron's other claims are addressed separately.