Walker v. Arnold

── Walker v. Arnold ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DERIK NATHANIEL WALKER, No. 23-1375 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:19-cv-00185-TLN-AC v. MEMORANDUM* E. ARNOLD; J. LEE; KEVIN FOX; ANTHONY THOMAS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 15, 2026** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges California state prisoner Derik Walker appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from prison disciplinary proceedings and an ensuing criminal prosecution. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  The district court properly dismissed Walker’s Fourth Amendment claim against Correctional Officer Nixon because Walker failed to allege facts showing that the strip and body cavity searches which Nixon performed were excessive, or unrelated to a legitimate penological interest. See Michenfelder v. Summer, 860 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that strip searches of prisoners, unless “excessive, vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate penological interest” are generally permitted); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 558 (1978) (holding that in the prison context, visual body cavity searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment). The district court properly dismissed Walker’s Eighth Amendment claims against Nixon and Lieutenant Lee, premised on Walker’s placement in administrative segregation, because Walker failed to allege facts regarding that placement which would rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. See Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejecting Eighth Amendment claim based on placement in administrative segregation because such segregation “is within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a sentence”). The district court properly dismissed Walker’s due process claim against Lee because Walker failed to allege facts showing that Lee acted in a manner rising to the level of a constitutional deprivation. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 2 23-1375 539, 566 (1974) (explaining that, at a prison disciplinary hearing, witness testimony may be prohibited when allowing it would interfere with institutional security); Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that “some evidence” is all that is constitutionally required to support a guilty finding in the prison context). The district court properly dismissed Walker’s claims against Warden Arnold because Walker failed to allege facts showing any acts or omissions by Arnold constituting a constitutional violation. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining that “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation” alone do not establish a civil rights violation). The district court properly dismissed Walker’s claims against the Solano County Sheriff’s Department because Walker failed