Fernando Aranda v. M. Martel

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO ARANDA, No. 09-17473
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01871-DOC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
M. MARTEL; DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted February 15, 2011 ***
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Fernando Aranda appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
violations arising from the possible loss of his confidential mail and the resulting
administrative grievance procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action against Warden Martel
because, contrary to Aranda’s contention, Warden Martel cannot be held liable
under respondeat superior for the possible loss of mail. See Taylor v. List, 880
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (a supervisor is not liable for constitutional
violations of his subordinates unless he “participated in or directed the violations,
or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”). Further, Aranda had
no liberty interest in an investigation or in the grievance procedure. See Wilkinson
v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221-23 (2005) (discussing liberty interests under the due
process clause); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“There is no
legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure.”).
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as a state
agency, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Brown v. Cal.
2 09-17473
Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the district court
properly dismissed the action against this defendant as well.
Aranda’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17473