N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDWARD C . JONES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. NIC HOLS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-56752 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01039-B TM B LM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry Te d M oskowitz , C h ie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. Edwa rd C . Jone s, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro sefrom the from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle ging fe de ra l c l a i m s a

rising from

his loss of ove

rnight fa m ily visits. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s 

# FIL ED APR 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).dism issa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Jone s’ s re ta lia t ion c la im be c a

use Jone s fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he wa s e nga ge d in prote c te d c onduc t, and tha t the re voc ation of his overnight fa m i ly visiting privile g e s did not re a s ona bly a dva nc e a le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa l. Se eRhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (se tting forth e le m e nts of a re ta lia t ion c la im in the prison c onte xt); se ealso N at’l Ass’n for the

Adv anc e m e nt of Psyc hoanaly sis v . C al. Bd. of Psyc hology , 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th C ir. 2000) (in de t e rm ining whe the r the c om pla i nt sta te s a c la im for re lie f, this c ourt “ m a

y c o nside r fa c t s c onta ine d in doc um e nts a

tta c h e d to thec om

pla int” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Jone s’ s due proc e ss c la im be c a use Jone s fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he ha d a c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty inte re st in overnight fa

m ily visits. Se eGe rbe r v . Hic k man , 291 F.3d 617, 621 (9th C ir. 2002) (e n ba nc ) (“ [I] t is we ll-se ttle d tha

t prisone rs ha

ve no c onstitutiona

l right while

inc arc e rate d to c o nta c t

visits or c o njuga l visits.” ); se e also S andin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d libe rty inte re st a rise s only whe n a

re stra int im

pose s a n “ aty pic a l a nd signific ant ha rdship on the

inm ate in re lation to the

ordina ry inc ide nts of prison life ” ).

1 4 - 5 6 7 5 2 2W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

Jone s’ s c onte ntions tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in not a llowing Jone s to a

m e nd his c om

pla int to a dd the wa

rde n, a n d tha t he should have be e n pe rm itte d to proc e e d with disc ove ry . AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 6 7 5 2 3