T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RA N D A LL CU M M ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J AME S E . T I L T ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 17740 D. C. No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 7 0 2 - M CE DA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M orr i s on C . E ngl a nd, J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R andal l C um m er , a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng va r i ous c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , R es ni ck v. 

# FI LED JAN 04 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 17740 2 H ayes , 2 1 3 F. 3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d C um m e r ’ s c l a i m s a r i s i ng f r om the te m p o r a ryd e p r iv a tio n o f h is p r o p e rtyb e c au s e C u m m e rh a s a n a d e q u a te p o s td e p r iv a tio n r e m e d y . Se e B arne t t v . C e ntoni , 31 F . 3d 813, 816- 17 ( 9th C i r . 1994) (p ri so n er fai l edt o st at e du e p ro cess cl ai m fo r d ep ri v at i o n o f p ro p erty b ecau se C al i forni a l aw prov i des an adequ at e post -depri vat i on re m edy) . M oreover, C um m erfa i l ed t o al l ege thatthe t em po rarydepri vat i on of hi s l egalprop erty c ause d h im a n a c tu a l in

ju ry . See L ew is v . Casey , 518 U . S . 343, 349- 51, 353 n. 3, 354- 55 (1 9 9 6 ) (fo r access-to-co u rtcl ai m , p ri so n er m u std em o n strat e th atd efen d an t s’ a c t i ons r e s ul t e d i n a c tua l i nj urya nd hi nde r e d hi s e f f ort s t o pur s ue anon- f

r i vol ous l egalcl ai m chal l engi ng hi s s ent ence or cond i t i on s of c on fi nem ent ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dC u m m e r ’s c la im s a r is in g f r o m h is c la s s if ic a tio n a n dtr a n s f

e rto ad if

f e r e n t p r is o n b e c au s e n o lib e rtyin te r e s t is im p lic a te d . Se e Me ac hum v . Fano , 427 U . S . 215, 224- 25 ( 1976) ( pr i s one r s ha ve n o lib e rtyin te r e s t in a v o id in g b e in g tr a n s f e rr e dto a n o th e rp r is o n ) ; H erna ndezv. J ohns ton , 83 3 F . 2d 13 16 , 13 18 (9th C i r. 19 87 ) ( “ [A ] pri soner has no const i tut i on al ri gh tt o a part i cul arcl as si fi ca t i on st atus. ” ( i nt ernalqu ot at i on s m arks om i tt ed)) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d C um m e r ’ s c l a i m s a r i s i ng f r om the p r o c e s s in g o f

h is g r ie v a n c e s b e c au s e p r is o n e r s d o n o t h a v e a“s e p a r a te10- 17740 3 const i tut i on alent i t l em entt o a spec i fi c pri son g ri evance proce du re . ” R am i rez v . G a la za , 334 F . 3d 850, 860 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . M or e ove r , C um m e rdi d nota l l e ge fa ct s dem on stra t i ng thathe w as prevent ed fr om fi l i ng a pri son g ri evance or that d e f e n d a n ts r e ta lia te da g a in s t h im f o rd o in g s o . Se e R hodes v . R obi ns on , 408 F . 3d 559, 566- 67 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( pr i s one r s ha ve F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o f i l e pr i s on g ri ev an ces an dret al i at i o n ag ai n sta p ri so n er fo r fi l i n g a g ri ev an ce i s a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e dCu mme r ’ s e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i ms be c aus e C um m e rf

a i l e d t o a l l e ge f

a c t s de m ons tr a t i ng tha tde f e nda nt s a c t e d w i th the i nt entt o d i sc ri m i nat e a gai nsthi m on the basi s of hi s m em bers hi p i n a prot ec t ed c la s s . Se e T

hornton v . C i t

yof St. H e le ns , 42 5 F . 3d 11 58 , 11 66 -67 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). C um m er ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.