Carr

MEMORANDUM

Timothy Lee Ward, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his retaliation claim and from the summary judgment on his due process and equal protection claims, all of which were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Reviewing both the dismissal and summary judgment de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994), we affirm.

Ward’s retaliation claim fails because he did not allege that Carr or Stewart took any action against him because of his grievances. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal” (footnote omitted)).

Ward’s due process claim fails because he did not show that his transfer within the Rynning Unit and his transfer to the Meadows Complex Detention Unit imposed an “atypical and…