Jesus Castaneda v. R. Trimble , 656 F. App'x 379 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS B. CASTANEDA, No. 15-16386
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00026-AWI-
BAM
v.
R. H. TRIMBLE; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jesus B. Castaneda appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of the
allegedly retaliatory confiscation and destruction of his medical ambulatory device.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Holcombe v.
*
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).
Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Castaneda’s retaliation and deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claims as barred by the doctrine of claim
preclusion because they involve the same primary right as Castaneda’s state habeas
petition. See Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1231-34 (9th Cir.
2014) (explaining that under California law, if two actions involve the same
primary right, judgment in the first action bars consideration of all matters which
were raised or could have been raised in the first action, and reasoned denials of
state habeas petitions have claim-preclusive effect notwithstanding a contention
that state habeas challenge was procedural and § 1983 action was substantive).
The district court properly dismissed Castaneda’s due process claim alleging
improper processing of grievances because Castaneda has no claim of an
entitlement to a particular grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d
850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a
specific prison grievance procedure.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 15-16386
To the extent the July 12, 2016 filing is a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, it is denied as unnecessary because Castaneda’s in forma pauperis
status continues on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-16386