Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shaun Darnell GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.S. LEWIS, Correctional Officer, Individual; J. curiel, Appeals Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-56567.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 9, 2014.
    Shaun Darnell Garland, Blythe, CA, pro se.
    Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Misha Igra, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California prisoner Shaun Darnell Garland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Garland’s First Amendment claim was proper because Garland failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Curiel’s screening of his grievances impeded his right to petition the government. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003) (“[Ijnmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 351-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (to state a claim for denial of access to courts, inmate must show actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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