From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Todd v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 27, 2015
No. 13-15803 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015)

Summary

holding that district court properly dismissed prisoner's "claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a 'constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure' "

Summary of this case from Quair v. CDCR HQ

Opinion

No. 13-15803

08-27-2015

MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01003-LJO-DLB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

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

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

Michael Anthony Todd appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he has been denied the right to practice his religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Todd's due process claim because Todd had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under California law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (no due process claim against a state employee for an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property where state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ("California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property deprivations.").

The district court properly dismissed Todd's claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a "constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).

However, the district court prematurely dismissed Todd's First Amendment, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), Establishment Clause and equal protection claims because Todd's allegations, liberally construed, were "sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer." Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1116; see also Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of RLUIPA claim); Alvarado v. City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth test to determine whether a belief or movement invokes constitutionally cognizable religious interests). We express no opinion as to whether Creativity constitutes a religion.

Todd's petition filed on November 18, 2013, is construed as a motion to submit a supplemental brief, and granted.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Todd v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 27, 2015
No. 13-15803 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015)

holding that district court properly dismissed prisoner's "claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a 'constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure' "

Summary of this case from Quair v. CDCR HQ

holding that district court properly dismissed prisoner's "claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a 'constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure[]'"

Summary of this case from Turner v. Munoz

holding that district court properly dismissed prisoner's "claim regarding the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a 'constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure[]'"

Summary of this case from Turner v. Munoz

concluding the district court properly dismissed claim based on improper "processing and handling of prison grievances," since prisoners have no "constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure"

Summary of this case from Humphries v. Newsome

affirming dismissal of claim based on improper "processing and handling of prison grievances," since prisoners have no "constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure"

Summary of this case from Pitts v. Ige
Case details for

Todd v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 27, 2015

Citations

No. 13-15803 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015)

Citing Cases

Walker v. Gonzalez

Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim as to Inmate Appeals Coordinator…

Valdivia v. Tampkins

Nonetheless, a prison official's improper processing of an inmate's grievances or appeals, without more,…