MEMORANDUM Will Moses Palmer, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted
summary judgment because Palmer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was improperly denied procedural protections during his disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 564-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (describing minimum procedural due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings and noting that the “full panoply of rights” due a defendant in criminal proceedings does not apply). The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery pending a ruling on defendants’
summary judgment motion. See Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir.2010) (“Qualified immunity confers upon officials a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Alaska Cargo Transp., Inc. v. Alaska R.R., 5 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.