From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emil v. Crawford

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 16, 2005
125 F. App'x 112 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted February 7, 2005.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Rodney Emil, Ely, NV, pro se.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-00132-HDM.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Nevada state prisoner Rodney Emil appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against prison employees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Emil's action because his allegations--that he was charged for prescription drugs, including drugs he did not receive, that he was required to pay for copies in order to file grievances, that defendants did not respond to his grievances to his satisfaction,

Page 113.

and that he was denied canteen privileges--do not state a constitutional claim. See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (due process protection limited to conduct that amounts to an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (charging inmates for medical care does not violate Eighth Amendment); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (deprivation of property does not constitute a due process violation when a post-deprivation state remedy is available); Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 73.010; 41.031; 209.243; Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir.1996) (no constitutional right to canteen items).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Emil v. Crawford

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 16, 2005
125 F. App'x 112 (9th Cir. 2005)
Case details for

Emil v. Crawford

Case Details

Full title:Rodney EMIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jackie CRAWFORD; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 16, 2005

Citations

125 F. App'x 112 (9th Cir. 2005)

Citing Cases

Schrubb v. Tilton

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in two unpublished decisions, has suggested…

Gelazela v. United States

Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State PrisonComm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 408 (9th Cir. 1985) (absent allegation that…