Unpublished Disposition, 860 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Gary St. Halaire, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action. He contends that he was denied due process when a prison official refused to allow him to present witnesses at a disciplinary hearing. We agree with the district court that St. Halaire failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Inmates may have constitutionally protected liberty interests in the proper application of state created prison regulations. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983) (liberty interests may be created by prison rules that place substantive limitations on official discretion). We need not decide whether the Arizona regulations at issue here create liberty interests, because we conclude that the regulations were properly applied. At the disciplinary hearing, St. Hilaire admitted to being in an unauthorized housing unit. His witnesses would merely have corroborated his excuse. Thus their proffered testimony was excludable as repetitive and cumulative.

St. Hilaire also contends that the written reprimand he received implicates a liberty interest because it may at some undetermined time affect the length of his prison sentence. Even assuming that his punishment in some way implicated a protected interest, we conclude that St. Hilaire received due process. He received a hearing and presented testimony in his own behalf. Cf. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 476 (1983) (prisoner facing administrative segregation need only receive an informal, non-adversary hearing consisting of notice of charges and an opportunity to present his views).

We conclude that St. Hilaire failed to allege a violation of any constitutional right. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action.

AFFIRMED.