#### Timothy PEOPLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Office of the Governor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-56090.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 29, 2010.

*205Timothy Peoples, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Timothy Peoples appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for retaliation, denial of access to courts, due process, equal protection, and deliberate indifference to medical needs against approximately thirty defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed each of Peoples’s claims against those supervisory defendants who were not personally involved in any alleged constitutional violation. *See id.*(“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant.”).

The district court properly dismissed Peoples’s retaliation claim because his conclusory allegations did not connect any defendant’s alleged misconduct with the alleged infringement of his First Amendment rights. *See Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (conclusory allegations of retaliatory motive insufficient); *Rizzo v. Dawson,*778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir.1985) (to state a claim for retaliation, defendant’s conduct must infringe on plaintiffs protected activity).

The district court properly dismissed Peoples’s Fifth Amendment claim because the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses apply only to the federal government, not to state actors. *See Bingue v. Prunchak,*512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir.2008).

The district court properly dismissed Peoples’s Fourteenth Amendment claim because he had no protected liberty interest concerning his administrative grievances, his placement in administrative segregation, or his transfer from one California prison to another. *See Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003) (inmates have no constitutional right to a specific grievance procedure); *May v. Baldwin,*109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir.1997) (no liberty interest arising out of segregation that falls within terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by sentence); *Rizzo,*778 F.2d at 530-31 (Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit transfers within state prison system).

The district eourt properly dismissed Peoples’s Eighth Amendment claim because neither Peoples’s bare allegations concerning defendants’ denial of yard privileges nor their unspecified “acts of confin-*206uous risk and harm” stated a claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (deliberate indifference claim requires showing that defendants knowingly disregarded a serious risk of harm to plaintiffs health or safety); *Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska,*673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982) (conclusory allegations insufficient for § 1983 liability).

Peoples’s motion for “Discovery, Non-Dispositive ruling, Suppression, and Destroying and Concealing Evidence” is denied.

Peoples’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.