Darrell Parks v. Wren , 651 F. App'x 597 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRELL JAMES PARKS, No. 15-55357
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:12-cv-01353-SVW-
JCG
v.
WREN, Mailroom Supervisor; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Darrell James Parks appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various constitutional claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A);
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Parks’ claims against defendants
Brody, Rene Galaz, Julie Galaz, Smith, Kwan, Scearce, Casey, Gonzalez, Palos,
Martinez, James, and Hamilton, because Parks failed to allege any specific
wrongdoing by these defendants. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir. 2002).
The district court properly dismissed Parks’ access-to-courts claim against
defendant Villegas because the dismissal of Parks’ civil actions was not caused by
Villegas’ alleged conduct. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-54 (1996)
(access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused
actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim).
The district court properly dismissed Parks’ claims against defendants Miller
and Schouten because mail from the courts and the United States Parole
Commission is not legal mail. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir.
1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (mail from courts not legal
mail); Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589, 590 (9th Cir. 1988) (mail from public
agencies not legal mail).
The district court properly dismissed Parks’ claim alleging that defendants
2 15-55357
violated his constitutional rights in the processing and handling of Parks’ prison
grievances because prisoners do not have “a constitutional entitlement to a specific
prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
2003).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Parks’ complaint
without leave to amend. See Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power, 623 F.3d 998, 1003
(9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review); McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger,
369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court may deny leave to amend where
amendment would be futile).
However, the district court failed to address Parks’ First Amendment
retaliation claim. Parks alleged that defendant Villegas searched his cell,
destroyed his property, and left his cell in “total discombobulation” in retaliation
for Parks’ filing of a grievance against Villegas. These allegations are sufficient
to state a retaliation claim under the First Amendment. See Rhodes v. Robinson,
408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of retaliation claim in the
prison context).
Parks has waived any claims of error relating to the dismissal of his initial
complaint because it was dismissed with leave to amend, and Parks subsequently
filed an amended complaint. See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14, 974 n.15 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to replead claims after
3 15-55357
dismissal with leave to amend amounts to waiver). To the extent that Parks
argues that the district court erred by dismissing with leave to amend claims that he
repled in his amended complaint, any such error was harmless.
We do not address Parks’ contention regarding appointment of counsel
because Parks failed to raise this issue before the district court. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
In sum, we affirm the dismissal of Parks’ claims to the extent that the district
court addressed them, but we vacate in part and remand for further proceedings on
Parks’ retaliation claim.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
4 15-55357