SHAUN GARLAND V. D. LEWIS, No. 13-56567 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 9 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-56567 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09010-FMO-OP v. MEMORANDUM* D. S. LEWIS, Correctional Officer, Individual; J. CURIEL, Appeals Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. California prisoner Shaun Darnell Garland appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Garland s First Amendment claim was proper because Garland failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Curiel s screening of his grievances impeded his right to petition the government. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) ( [I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure. ); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 351-53 (1996) (to state a claim for denial of access to courts, inmate must show actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation). We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 13-56567

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.