NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

J.P. PARNELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

A. MARTINEZ; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16393 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01556-MCECKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner J.P. Parnell appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16393 

Cir. 2012). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Parnell’s due process claim challenging 

his raised classification level following his failure to submit to a urinalysis because 

Parnell failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that his raised classification 

level presented an “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary 

incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Myron v. 

Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that prison regulations 

governing inmate’s classification did not create a liberty interest because inmate 

failed to show that his raised classification level presented an “atypical and 

significant hardship” or would “invariably affect the duration of his sentence”

(citations and quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court properly dismissed Parnell’s due process claim challenging 

his disciplinary hearing following his failure to submit to a urinalysis because 

Parnell failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that he was not afforded all 

the process that was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974) (to 

satisfy due process, prison officials must provide an inmate advance written notice 

of the violation, a written statement as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons 

for the disciplinary action taken, and a limited right to call witnesses and present 

documentary evidence); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) 

(“[T]he requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the 
3 19-16393 

[disciplinary] decision . . . . ”).

The district court properly dismissed Parnell’s due process claim challenging

defendants’ responses to his grievances because Parnell “lack[s] a separate 

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).

The district court properly dismissed Parnell’s claims challenging

defendants’ alleged failure to comply with prison regulations because failure to 

follow “state departmental regulations do[es] not establish a federal constitutional 

violation.” Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).

The district court properly dismissed Parnell’s equal protection, cruel and 

unusual punishment, and retaliation claims because Parnell failed to allege facts 

sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must 

present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also

Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(elements of a § 1983 equal protection claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 

567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); 

Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000) (an Eighth Amendment 

cruel and unusual punishment claim requires punishment which is “offensive to 

human dignity” (citation omitted)). 
4 19-16393 

Contrary to Parnell’s contentions, he suffered no prejudice from the district 

court’s failure to rule on his motions for judicial notice or for reconsideration. 

Parnell’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Docket Entry No. 12) is 

denied. 

AFFIRMED.