Jeremy Crozier v. Adam Endel , 447 F. App'x 861 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY ALLEN CROZIER, No. 11-15194
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00535-LRH-
RAM
v.
ADAM ENDEL; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jeremy Allen Crozier appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection,
unlawful seizure, access-to-courts, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order). The court may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s equal protection claim
because he failed to allege that defendants intentionally discriminated against him
based on his membership in a suspect class or that defendants’ conduct lacked any
rational basis. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-81 (9th Cir. 1999).
The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s claim for unlawful seizure of
property because there is no Fourth Amendment right to be free from searches and
seizures in prison. See Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 2010)
(traditional right of privacy is fundamentally incompatible with continual prison
surveillance of inmates and their cells for internal security); Barnett v. Centoni, 31
F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (property deprivation is not cognizable
under §1983 where state law provides adequate post deprivation remedy); see also
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 209.243 (prisoners can file administrative claim to recover
compensation for loss of property, property damage, personal injuries, or other
torts during incarceration within six months of injury).
2 11-15194
The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s access-to-courts claim
because, given his successful filing of numerous civil rights actions, he could not
allege any actual injury as a result of his delayed or limited access to the prison law
library or other materials. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (inmate
must establish that alleged shortcomings in prison library frustrated a legal claim).
Dismissal of Crozier’s due process claim was proper because he did not
allege that issuance of a rule violation report imposed “an atypical and significant
hardship” on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life to give rise to a
protected liberty interest. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Crozier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15194