Michael Devaughn v. North Kern State Prison ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL O. DeVAUGHN, No. 13-15412
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00385-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON; D.
MARTIN, counselor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael O. DeVaughn appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations arising from his removal to California to stand trial on
*
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).
criminal charges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed DeVaughn’s claim that defendants
violated his constitutional rights in the processing and handling of his prison
grievances because prisoners do not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific
prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
2003).
To the extent that DeVaughn brought claims challenging the fact and
duration of his confinement, those claims were properly dismissed. See Wilkinson
v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (“[A] prisoner in state custody cannot use a
§ 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeVaughn’s
motion to alter or amend judgment because DeVaughn failed to establish clear
error or other grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or.,
5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
2 13-15412
We reject as without merit DeVaughn’s contention that he is entitled as a
matter of law to injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15412