Opinion
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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)
State prisoner brought suit under § 1983, and state law, alleging that he was denied a hardship transfer in retaliation for filing grievances. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, dismissed claims without leave to amend. Prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) § 1983 claim was properly dismissed without leave to amend, as denial of transfer had been permissibly based on legitimate safety concerns, and (2) court properly declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over state law claim.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, Presiding.
Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Carlos Thomas Garcia, a California state inmate, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, without leave to amend, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a
Page 465.
claim. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). The district court's denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion, see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc); and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims is reviewed for clear error, see Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed Garcia's complaint, which alleged that he was denied a hardship transfer in retaliation for filing grievances, because the prison officials' transfer decision was based on legitimate safety concerns. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting Garcia an opportunity to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1131.
The district court properly declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Garcia's state law claims because his federal claims were absolutely devoid of merit. See Brady, 51 F.3d at 816.
AFFIRMED.