EMILIANO LOPEZ V. JAMES YATES, No. 13-17492 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 04 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMILIANO LOPEZ, No. 13-17492 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00107-LJO-DLB v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Emiliano Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under * 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). 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 may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Lopez’s access-to-courts claim was proper because Lopez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual injury as a result of any defendants’ alleged inaction. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996) (requiring factual allegations showing actual injury in order to state an access-tocourts claim); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s claim regarding the denial of meaningful review of his grievances because there is no constitutional right to receive a particular type of prison grievance review. 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 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability). AFFIRMED. 2 13-17492
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.
