Wayne Pickering v. Ken Clark

MEMORANDUM

Wayne Pickering, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and violations of his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (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 Pickering’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Pickering failed to allege facts showing that prison officials took adverse action against him because he filed grievances. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly dismissed Pickering’s claim alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights in the processing and handling of his prison grievances because prisoners do not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v.…