Richard Bryan v. Terrie Matsen , 609 F. App'x 422 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD WESLEY BRYAN, No. 14-35493
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05075-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TERRIE MATSEN, SCCC Mailroom
Staff; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Richard Wesley Bryan appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment claims arising from the rejection of his mail. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th
Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Bryan’s First Amendment claim alleging that defendants
violated an internal prison policy by withholding his mail was proper because
failure to follow internal prison policies does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).
The district court properly dismissed Bryan’s retaliation claim because
Bryan failed to allege facts showing that defendants rejected his mail in retaliation
for filing a lawsuit, or that defendants had no legitimate penological reason for
rejecting his mail. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)
(elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v.
Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (courts should “‘afford appropriate
deference’” to prison officials in evaluating “proffered legitimate penological
reasons” (citation omitted)); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of
Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[W]e may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 14-35493
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35493