Jorge Diaz v. K. Prunty , 407 F. App'x 102 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ARMANDO DIAZ, No. 09-16352
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00912-OWW-
SMS
v.
K. W. PRUNTY, Undersecretary; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jorge Armando Diaz appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice Diaz’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
claiming that the grievance process used by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) deprived him of his First and Fourteenth
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Amendment right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 565 F.3d 1205, 1212 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Diaz contends that the CDCR’s process violated his right to access the
courts because a CDCR appeals coordinator rejected as untimely Diaz’s grievance
concerning certain searches for contraband. As a result, Diaz was unable to
properly exhaust his administrative remedies, leading to the dismissal of a previous
federal action challenging the searches. In order to allege a cognizable claim, Diaz
must plead, among other things, that prison officials caused his inability to access
the courts. See Crompton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). Diaz
admits that the only cause of his failure to file a timely grievance was a delay in
obtaining evidence. However, Diaz was not required to submit evidence with his
grievance. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.2(a). CDCR officials thus did not
cause his inability to exhaust, and Diaz cannot show that the CDCR proximately
caused any denial of access he may have suffered.
AFFIRMED.
2