Opinion
No. 14-16584
03-19-2015
BRUCE PHILLIPPI, II, AKA Robert M. Ray, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATTERSON; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01514-SAB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Stanley A. Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Phillippi consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Bruce Phillippi, II, aka Robert M. Ray, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his right of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
Phillippi filed his complaints and appeal under the name Robert M. Ray, aka Bruce Phillippi. However, he is imprisoned under the name "Bruce Phillipi," and the relevant district court orders refer to Appellant as "Bruce Phillipi."
--------
The district court properly dismissed Phillippi's First Amendment retaliation claims because Phillippi failed to allege facts showing that defendants improperly denied, rejected, and/or cancelled his grievances because of his protected conduct. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (the timing of adverse actions alone is insufficient to establish retaliatory intent); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court properly dismissed Phillippi's access-to-courts claim because Phillippi failed to allege facts showing an actual injury resulting from defendants' handling of his grievances. See Nev. Dep't of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (access-to-courts claim requires "actual prejudice . . . to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Phillippi's contention that his due process rights were violated.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Phillippi's motion for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
Phillippi's motion for in forma pauperis status, set forth in his opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.