Randall Cummer v. James Tilton

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDALL CUMMER, No. 10-17740
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02702-MCE-
DAD
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Randall Cummer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v.
*
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).
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cummer’s claims arising from the
temporary deprivation of his property because Cummer has an adequate post-
deprivation remedy. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994)
(prisoner failed to state due process claim for deprivation of property because
California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy). Moreover,
Cummer failed to allege that the temporary deprivation of his legal property caused
him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51, 353 n.3, 354-55
(1996) (for access-to-court claim, prisoner must demonstrate that defendants’
actions resulted in actual injury and hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous
legal claim challenging his sentence or conditions of confinement).
The district court properly dismissed Cummer’s claims arising from his
classification and transfer to a different prison because no liberty interest is
implicated. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976) (prisoners have
no liberty interest in avoiding being transferred to another prison); Hernandez v.
Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[A] prisoner has no constitutional
right to a particular classification status.” (internal quotations marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Cummer’s claims arising from the
processing of his grievances because prisoners do not have a “separate
2 10-17740
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, Cummer did not allege
facts demonstrating that he was prevented from filing a prison grievance or that
defendants retaliated against him for doing so. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 566-67 (9th Cir. 2005) (prisoners have First Amendment right to file prison
grievances and retaliation against a prisoner for filing a grievance is a
constitutional violation).
The district court properly dismissed Cummer’s equal protection claims
because Cummer failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants acted with the
intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his membership in a protected
class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).
Cummer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-17740