Robert Stone v. Ysidro Becerra ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT BRIAN STONE, No. 11-35426
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00138-RMP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
YSIDRO BECERRA, Correctional Unit
Supervisor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Former Washington state prisoner Robert Brian Stone appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
prison officials deprived him of a meaningful review of his grievances and
*
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).
retaliated and conspired against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.
2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stone’s claim regarding the denial of a
meaningful review of his grievances because there is no constitutional right to
receive a particular type of review of a prison grievance. 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.”).
The district court properly dismissed Stone’s retaliation claims because
Stone failed to allege that defendants’ actions were motivated by his filing of
grievances and did not advance a legitimate correctional purpose. See Pratt v.
Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-09 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone
is not sufficient to support the inference of a retaliatory motive; a prisoner must
show that there were no legitimate correctional purposes for conduct alleged to be
retaliatory).
The district court properly dismissed Stone’s conspiracy claim because
Stone failed to allege facts showing that defendants agreed to violate his
constitutional rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff
must allege facts that “allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the
2 11-35426
defendants is liable for the misconduct alleged”); Crowe v. County of San Diego,
608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy requires the existence of an
agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to
amend because the deficiencies in Stone’s complaint could not be cured by
amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be
given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35426