DUNCAN v. LEHMAN, 256 Fed.Appx. 114 (9th Cir. 2007)

William E. DUNCAN, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. Joseph LEHMAN, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 06-35561.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted November 13, 2007[*] .
Filed November 26, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Michael C. Kahrs, Esq., Kahrs Law Firm, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William E. Duncan, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.

Gregory J. Rosen, Esq., Sara J. Olson, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-05633-RBL.

Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Page 115

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Former Washington state prisoner William E. Duncan appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendant violated his due process rights by failing to release him into community custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

Even if Duncan had a liberty interest in community custody placement giving rise to due process protections, Duncan failed to show actions taken pursuant to his 2003 application for release violated clearly established law at the time of the request. See id. at 970-71 (discussing qualified immunity defense requirements); see also In re Liptrap, 127 Wash.App. 463, 111 P.3d 1227 (2005). Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Sorrels, 290 F.3d at 971-72.

Duncan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

jdjungle