Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Osiel RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. KARGE, Captain; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
    Osiel Rodriguez, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Osiel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging constitutional violations arising from an electronic word search of his documents and related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim alleging that prison officials improperly conducted electronic word searches on documents that Rodriguez drafted on a shared word processor because inmates have no legitimate expectation of privacy in their prison cells or possessions. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-27, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).

The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because Rodriguez failed to allege facts showing how his placement in the Secure Housing Unit or transfer to the Administrative Maximum facility imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223-24, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005). Further, “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a special prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.