Osiel Rodriguez v. J. Karge, et al, No. 09-15482 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSIEL RODRIGUEZ, No. 09-15482 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00332-GSA v. MEMORANDUM * J. KARGE, Captain; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding ** Submitted September 13, 2010 *** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Osiel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** *** Rodriguez consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). constitutional violations arising from an electronic word search of his documents and related claims. 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim alleging that prison officials improperly conducted electronic word searches on documents that Rodriguez drafted on a shared word processor because inmates have no legitimate expectation of privacy in their prison cells or possessions. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-27 (1984). The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because Rodriguez failed to allege facts showing how his placement in the Secure Housing Unit or transfer to the Administrative Maximum facility imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223-34 (2005). Further, inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a special prison grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). AFFIRMED. 2 09-15482

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.