Gary Corbray v. K. Cunningham

MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Gary Louis Corbray appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e)(2) or 1915A. Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir.2010); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). 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 Corbray’s retaliation claim was proper because Corbray failed to allege that defendants’ allegedly retaliatory actions failed to serve any valid penological goals. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (discussing elements of retaliation claim in prison context).

Dismissal of Corbray’s Sixth Amendment claim was proper because Corbray failed to allege any violation of his right to a speedy trial, to confront any witnesses against him, or to assistance of counsel. See U.S. Const, amend. VI; Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (there is generally no right to counsel in civil…