Francis Davis v. M. Martel ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCIS W. DAVIS, No. 11-18078
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00859-GGH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
M. MARTEL, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted September 10, 2012 ***
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francis W. Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Davis consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
***The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
constitutional violations in connection with his placement in administrative
segregation, his change in classification status, and the handling of his prison
grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s Fourteenth Amendment claims
because Davis failed to allege facts sufficient to show the deprivation of a
protected liberty or property interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84
(1995) (requirements to demonstrate a protected liberty interest); Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of
property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural
requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a
meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”); Ramirez v. Galaza,
334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (prisoners do not have a “separate constitutional
entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure”); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833
F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (prisoners have no constitutional right to a certain
classification status).
To the extent that Davis sought to allege additional violations of his rights,
they were properly dismissed because Davis’s complaint did not contain a short
2 11-18078
and plain statement of those claims as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). See
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint must make
clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to
guide discovery”).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-18078