HARRISON v. SHAFFER (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-03No. No. 19-17409

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Harrison's § 1983 due process claim was affirmed because Harrison failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under the applicable legal standard for parole hearings.

David Scott Harrison, a California state prisoner, sued under federal civil rights law claiming that officials violated his due process rights during a parole hearing. The district court dismissed his case for failure to state a valid legal claim. Harrison appealed, arguing the dismissal was improper. On appeal, the court examined whether Harrison had alleged sufficient facts to support a due process violation in the parole context.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal because Harrison did not allege facts that would establish a plausible due process claim. Under federal law governing parole hearings, a prisoner's due process rights are satisfied by receiving an opportunity to be heard and receiving a written explanation for why parole was denied. Harrison's complaint fell short of these minimal requirements. The court also rejected Harrison's request to reconsider the dismissal, finding he provided no valid grounds for relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Harrison stated a plausible due process claim arising from a parole hearing
What factual allegations are required to satisfy federal due process standards in the parole context
Whether the district court properly denied Harrison's motion for reconsideration

Procedural posture

Harrison appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his § 1983 civil rights action under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner David Scott Harrison appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising out of his parole hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. SanMedica Intl, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrisons action because Harrison failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (a federal due process claim in the parole context requires only that prisoner be provided with an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harrisons motion for reconsideration because Harrison failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

Harrisons request for appointment of counsel and trial by jury, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.