Allen Hammler v. David Baugham ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 20-16089
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00245-TLN-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID BAUGHAM; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First
Amendment retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hammler’s action because Hammler
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants took an adverse action
against him because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d
1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the
prison context).
To the extent that Hammler alleged deficiencies in the grievance process, the
district court properly dismissed these claims because “inmates lack a separate
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-16089