22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T528,MEMORANDUM Otis Ray Glenn, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials denied him due process in connection with the administrative review of a rules violation report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that Glenn’s complaint failed to state a claim because prisoners “lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, to the extent that Glenn challenges the 2002 rules violation report, his challenge is time-barred. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that in section 1983 actions courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and noting California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims). Glenn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Glenn’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55f,

MEMORANDUM

Otis Ray Glenn, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials denied him due process in connection with the administrative review of a rules violation report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Glenn’s complaint failed to state a claim because prisoners “lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, to the extent that Glenn challenges the 2002 rules violation report, his challenge is time-barred. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that in section 1983 actions courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and noting California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims).

Glenn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Glenn’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.