1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Catanzarite’s claim that his indeterminate SHU detention violated his due process rights because prison officials afforded Catanzarite all of the process he was due under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080,1100-01, 1104 (9th Cir.1986) (explaining due process procedures to which prisoners with liberty interests in them placements are entitled, and noting that while some sort of periodic review of an inmate’s continued segregated confinement is necessary, this review does not require the submission of additional evidence), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S, 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); see also Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287 (<HOLDING>). We do not consider Catanzarite’s contentions
holding that records pertaining to an altercation involving over 50 inmates and maintained by the special investigative office at that facility were compiled for a law enforcement purpose because they were created in connection with the bops responsibility to protect  inmates staff and the community internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that records pertaining to the investigation of an inmateoninmate assault were compiled for law enforcement purposes because they were created in connection with the bops responsibility to protect  inmates staff and the community internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that threats to an inmates safety after his use of the prison grievance system supported a retaliation claim holding that shu confinement that manifests an administrative strategy designed to preserve order in the prison and protect the safety of all inmates need only be supported by some evidence and noting that the assignment of inmates within the california prisons is essentially a matter of administrative discretion citations and internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted