Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Treandous A. COTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffery BEARD, Secretary of CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15333.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2014.
    Treandous A. Cotton, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAYY, FISHER, 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

Treandous A. Cotton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cotton’s due process claim regarding his classification as a gang member and subsequent placement on a modified program because Cotton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he had a liberty interest at stake. See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural due process claim, including “a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Resnick, 213 F.3d at 448 (a prisoner only has a liberty interest “when a change occurs in confinement that imposes an atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). .

The district court properly dismissed Cotton’s equal protection claim because Cotton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was discriminated against because of his membership in a protected class, see Furnare v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir.2013), or that any defendant intentionally treated him differently than similarly situated individuals, see Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601-02, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008).

The district court properly dismissed Cotton’s claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.