NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

- MCE

CKD

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. § 1 291. 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 APPEALS2 19

- 16393

Cir. 2012). We affirm

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

his raised classification level following hi s 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 discipl inary 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 the3 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 protect ion , cruel and

unusual punishment, and retaliation claim s 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. Robin son , 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) (a n Eighth Amendment

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

h uman 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.