Case ID: f-appx_513/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William RAINER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. CHAPMAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17128.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 22, 2013.
    William Rainer, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner William Rainer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rainer’s due process claims based on his removal from his work assignment and transfer from the facility where his job was located because these allegations did not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (requiring “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” or a restraint that exceeds the prisoner’s sentence in “an unexpected manner” to state a liberty interest); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (there is no liberty or property interest in prison employment).

The district court properly dismissed Rainer’s due process claim based on defendants’ processing of Rainer’s administrative grievances because prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in a particular grievance procedure. See 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.