Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert J. BARDO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. K. CLENDENIN; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 11-16031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 23, 2012.
    Robert J. Bardo, Blythe, CA, pro se.
    Tyler V. Heath, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, AND SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert J. Bardo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights by removing an ad containing nudity from his mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 966 n. 18 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly held that defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because Bardo did not have a clearly established First Amendment right to retain the ad depicting side-view nudity. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (prohibitions on inmates possessing sexually explicit materials are reasonably related to penological interests).

The district court also properly dismissed the due process claims against defendants Floto and Garcia because prisoners have no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003).

We do not consider Bardo’s arguments concerning the California prison regulation in question that were not raised before the district court. See Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir.1992) (“As a general rule, an appellate court will not hear an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.