N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR VIN R . GOR

DON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M ATTHEW

C ATE, Dire c tor of the C a l ifornia De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions a

nd R e h a bilita tion; R . GR O UNDS, W arde n, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15502 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-03593-JST M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jon S. Tiga

r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. M arvin R . Gordon, a C a l ifornia sta te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing va rious c onstitutiona

l viola t ions a rising from

disc iplina

ry proc e e dings a

n d his pla c e m e nt in 

# FIL ED JAN 28 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).a dm inistra

tive se gre gation. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd le ga l rulings on e xha

ustion); Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6)). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Gordon’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c onditions-of-c onfine m e nt c la im be c a use Gordon fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine d isputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nts C ate and Grounds we re de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to the c onditions in a dm inistra tive se gre gation. Se e Farme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison offic ia l c a

nnot be found lia

ble for

“ de ny ing a

n inm at e hum ane c onditions of c o nfine m e nt unle s s the offic ia l knows of and disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a lth or sa fe ty ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Gordon’ s due proc e ss c la im re ga rding pla c e m e nt in a dm i nistra

tive se gre gation be c a

use Gordon fa ile d to e xha ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. Se eW

oodford v . N

go , 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding tha

t “prope r e xha

ustion”is m andatory

an d re quire s a dhe re nc e to a dm inistra

tive proc e dura l rule s); Griffin v . Arpaio , 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [A] grie va

nc e suffic e s if it a le rts the prison to the nat ure of the wrong for

1 4 - 1 5 5 0 2 2whic h re dre ss is sought.” (c i t ation a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks omitte d)). Dism issa l of Gordon’ s c l a im re ga rding theproc e ssing of his grieva nc e s wa s prope r be c a

use prisone rs do not ha

ve a “ c onstitutiona

l e ntitle m e nt to a spe c ific prison grie va

n c e proc e dure .” Ramire

z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C ir. 2003). W e do not tre at this c la i m a s a re ta lia tion c la im , a s the distric t c ourt did, be c a use Gordon’ s filings in the distric t c ourt a

n d on a ppe a l indic ate that this c la im wa s pre m ise d on theright to a spe c ific grie va

nc e proc e dure . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Gordon’ s First Am e n dm e nt re ta lia tory c e ll se a rc h c la im be c a use Gordon fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he wa s e nga ge d in prote c te d c o nduc t. Se e R h ode

s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a

re ta lia tion c la im in the prison c onte xt). Dism issa l of Gordon’ s due proc e s s c la im re ga rding Gordon be ing ove rc h arge d on a

disc iplina

ry offe nse wa s prope r be c a

use Gordon fa i le d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts viola te d his dueproc e s s rights. Se e W olff v . Mc D onne ll , 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (se tting forth dueproc e ss re quire m e nts for prison disc iplina

ry proc e e dings). W e re

je c t Gordon’ s c onte ntion tha t he sta te d a c ogniz a ble due proc e ss c la i m

pre m ise d on viola t ions of the C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode . 1 4 - 1 5 5 0 2 3The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Gordon’ s due proc e ss c la im re ga rding his loss of property

be c a use Gordon ha d a

n a de quate post-depriva

tion re m e d

y unde r C a lifornia

la w. Se eBarne tt v . C

e ntoni , 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th C ir. 1994) (pe r c uriam ) (“ [A] ne glige nt or inte ntiona l de priva tion of a prisone r’ s prope rty

fa ils to sta te a c l a im unde r se c tion 1983 if the sta t e ha s an a de quat e post depriva tion re m e dy . C a lifornia Law provide s a n a de q uate post-depriva

tion re m e dy [.] ” (c ita tion omitte d)). Dism issa l of Gordon’ s fra udule nt c onfisc ation re c e i pt c la im a ga inst de fe nda nts C ate an d Grounds wa s prope r be c a use Gordon fa i le d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to de m onstra

te the ir pe rsona l involve m e nt in the a lle ge d viola tion or a c a usa l c onne c tion be twe e n the ir c onduc t a nd the a lle ge d viola

tion. Se eStarr , 652 F.3d at 1207-08 (re q

uire m e nts for e sta

blishing supe

rvisory lia bility). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Gordon’ s due proc e ss c la im re ga rding his c la s sific ation a

nd privile ge s be c a

use Gordon fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he ha d a prote c te d libe rty

inte re s t. S

e e Sandin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (sta

te la w only c re ate s libe rty

inte re sts de se rving prote c tion unde r the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt’ s Due Proc e ss C la use whe n prison offic ia ls im pose

“ at y pic a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship on the

inm at e in re lation to the ordina ry inc i de nts of prison life ” ); M oody v . Dagge tt , 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (the 1 4 - 1 5 5 0 2

4C onstitution itse lf provide s no libe rty inte re s t in c l a ssific ation sta tus or in e ligibility for re h a bilita tive progra

m s). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). Gordon’ s re que sts for judic ia l notic e , se t forth in his ope n ing a n d re p ly brie fs, a re de n i e d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 5 0 2 5