Alvaro Quezada v. A. Herrera

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2013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
ALVARO QUEZADA, No. 12-16886
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00483-AWI-
GBC
v.
A. HERRERA; 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 May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alvaro Quezada appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
retaliated and conspired against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v.
Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Quezada’s retaliation claims because
Quezada failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted with retaliatory intent,
and that their actions did not advance a legitimate correctional purpose. See
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the
elements of a retaliation claim under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Quezada’s conspiracy claims because
Quezada failed to allege facts showing that defendants agreed to violate his
constitutional rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action’” is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. (citation omitted));
Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (a conspiracy
claim requires the existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate
constitutional rights).
The district court properly dismissed Quezada’s claim that defendants
improperly reviewed his grievance appeals because there is no constitutional right
to receive a particular type of review of a prison grievance. See Ramirez v. Galaza,
2 12-16886
334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional
entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).
Quezada’s contentions that he was prevented from filing objections to the
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and that the district court failed
to rule on his motions for a protective order and for extensions of time, are
unpersuasive.
Quezada’s request to consolidate this case with another pending appeal, set
forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16886