N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH NIC HOLS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. ELOY M E DINA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-17442 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-05773-JD 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 Jam e s Dona

to, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d April 26, 2016 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd PAEZ, C i rc u it Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Jose ph Nic hols a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing c onstitutiona l c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A, Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir.



# FIL ED M AY02 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).2000), a

nd m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord, Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892-93. We a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Nic hols’ re ta l iation c l a im s be c a use Nic hols did not a

lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to support his c onc lusory a lle gat ions of re ta lia tory m otive . Se eRhode

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

First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im in theprison c o nte xt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Nic hols’ a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la im s be c a use Nic hols fa ile d to a lle ge tha t he suffe re d a

n a c tua l injury . Se eLe w is v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (a n a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la im

re quire s pla intiff to show tha t de fe nda nt’ s c onduc t c a

use d a c tua l injury

to a non-frivolous le ga l c la im). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Nic hols’ c la im re ga rding theha

ndling of his a dm inistra

tive grie va

nc e s be c a use inm ate s a

re not e ntitle d to a

spe c ific ty

pe of grie va nc e proc e ss. Se eRamire

z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [I] nm ate s la c k a

se p a rate c onstitutiona

l e ntitle m e nt to a

spe c ific prison grie va

nc e proc e d ure .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Nic hols’ c la im tha t de fe nda nts de prive d him

of prope rty

without due

proc e ss be c a

u se Nic h o ls ha d a

n a de quate post-depriva

tion re m e dy unde r C a lifornia la w. Se eBarne tt v . C

e ntoni , 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th C ir. 1994) (c i ting C a l. Govt. C o de §§ 810-895). 1 4 - 1 7 4 4 2 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing Nic hols’ am e nde d c o m

pla int without le ave to a

m e nd a fte r providing Nichols with the opportunity

to a m e nd. Se eC

e rv ante s v . C ountryw ideHome Loans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla i ning tha

t le ave to a m e nd should be

give n unle ss a m e ndm e nt would befutile ); se ealso C hodos v . W

e st Publ’g C

o. , 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [W ] he n a distric t c ourt ha s a lre a dy

grante d a pla intiff le ave to a

m e nd, its discre tion in de c iding subse q ue nt m otions to a

m e nd is pa

rtic u la rly broa d.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Nic hols’ m otion for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use Nic hols did not de

m onstra te e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se ePalme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s re quire m e nt for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Nic hols’ m otion for re c u sa l be c a

use Nic hols fa ile d to e sta

blish a ny ground for re c u sa l. Se ePe sne ll v . Arse nault , 543 F.3d 1039, 1043-44 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w and grounds for re c usa l); Unite d State s v . He rnande

z , 109 F.3d 1450, 1454 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ [J] udic ia l rulings alone a lm ost ne ve r c onstitute va lid ba sis for a

bia s 1 4 - 1 7 4 4 2 3or pa

rtia lity m otion.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d)). W e do not c onside r the dismissa l of Nic h ols’ origina l c om pla int be c a

use his se c o nd a m e nde d c om

pla int supe rse de s it. S

e eFe rdik v . Bonze le t , 963 1258, 1262 (9th. C ir. 1992). Nic hols’ re que st for judic ia l notic e , file d on Ja nua ry 14, 2015, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 7 4 4 2 4