Robert Stone v. Ysidro Becerra

MEMORANDUM

Former Washington state prisoner Robert Brian Stone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials deprived him of a meaningful re view of his grievances and retaliated and conspired against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stone’s claim regarding the denial of a meaningful review of his grievances because there is no constitutional right to receive a particular type of review of a prison grievance. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003) (“[I]n-mates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).

The district court properly dismissed Stone’s retaliation claims because Stone failed to allege that defendants’ actions were motivated by his filing of grievances and did not advance a legitimate correctional purpose. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-09 (9th Cir.1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone is not sufficient to support the inference of a retaliatory motive; a prisoner must show that there…