Jaime Arias-Maldonado v. D. K. Sisto , 499 F. App'x 686 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            NOV 26 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JAIME ARIAS-MALDONADO,                           No. 12-15246
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00216-JMS-
    BMK
    v.
    D. K. SISTO, Warden; et al.,                     MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 13 , 2012 **
    Before:        CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Jaime Arias-Maldonado, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that defendants
    violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We review de novo a district
    *
    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).
    court’s summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1056 (9th Cir.
    2004), and dismissal under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
    Wilhelm v. Rotman, 
    680 F.3d 1113
    , 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arias-
    Maldonado’s Equal Protection Clause claim because Arias-Maldonado failed to
    raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with a
    racially discriminatory intent in transferring Arias-Maldonado to a prison outside
    California. See United States v. Coleman, 
    24 F.3d 37
    , 38-39 (9th Cir. l994)
    (“‘[E]ven if a neutral law has a disproportionately adverse impact on a racial
    minority, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause only if that
    impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.’” (citation omitted)).
    Dismissal of Arias-Maldonado’s claim that defendants failed to respond to
    his emergency grievances was proper because Arias-Maldonado failed to allege an
    actual injury and because he has no constitutional entitlement to a specific
    grievance procedure. See Silva v. DiVittorio, 
    658 F.3d 1090
    , 1102 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (requiring plaintiffs to allege an “‘actual injury’ to court access” to state a claim for
    violation of the First Amendment (citation omitted)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza,
    
    334 F.3d 850
    , 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional
    entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).
    2                                     12-15246
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arias-Maldonado
    leave to file a third amended complaint to assert a claim alleging that defendants
    violated his Eighth Amendment rights by transferring him out-of-state without
    proper medical screening. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.,
    
    465 F.3d 946
    , 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a fifteen month delay between
    obtaining the relevant facts and seeking leave to amend is unreasonable). Thus, we
    decline to address the merits of this claim on appeal. See Crawford v. Lungren, 
    96 F.3d 380
    , 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996) (declining to address claims not raised in the
    complaint).
    Arias-Maldonado’s motion to file a substitute reply brief is granted. The
    Clerk shall file the reply brief received on September 13, 2012.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    12-15246