WILLIAM RAINER V. D. CHAPMAN, No. 08-17128 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM RAINER, No. 08-17128 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05343-OWWDLB v. MEMORANDUM * D. CHAPMAN; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2013 ** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Former California state prisoner William Rainer appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * 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). novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Rainer s due process claims based on his removal from his work assignment and transfer from the facility where his job was located because these allegations did not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (requiring atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life or a restraint that exceeds the prisoner s sentence in an unexpected manner to state a liberty interest); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (there is no liberty or property interest in prison employment). The district court properly dismissed Rainer s due process claim based on defendants processing of Rainer s administrative grievances because prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in a particular grievance procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). AFFIRMED. 2 08-17128
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.
