Stone v. Becerra, 052213 FED9, 11-35426

Docket Nº:11-35426
Party Name:ROBERT BRIAN STONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YSIDRO BECERRA, Correctional Unit Supervisor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 22, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ROBERT BRIAN STONE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

YSIDRO BECERRA, Correctional Unit Supervisor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-35426

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 22, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 14, 2013 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00138-RMP

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Former Washington state prisoner Robert Brian Stone appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials deprived him of a meaningful review of his grievances and retaliated and conspired against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stone's claim regarding the denial of a meaningful review of his grievances because there is no constitutional right to receive a particular type of review of a prison grievance. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.").

The district court properly dismissed Stone's retaliation claims because Stone failed to allege that defendants' actions were motivated by his filing of grievances and did not advance a legitimate correctional purpose. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-09 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone is not sufficient to support the inference of a retaliatory motive; a prisoner must show that there were no legitimate correctional purposes for conduct alleged to be retaliatory).

The district court properly dismissed Stone's conspiracy claim because Stone failed to allege facts showing that defendants agreed to violate his constitutional rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP