FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LERAJJAREAN RA-O-KEL-LY, No. 09-35712
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00142-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL JOHNSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lerajjarean Ra-o-kel-ly, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
conditions of confinement and prison regulations. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1915(e). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Contrary to Appellant’s contentions, his equal protection claims concerning
property restrictions in administrative segregation and protective custody were
properly dismissed because he failed to allege facts showing that he was a member
of a protected class, or that similarly-situated inmates outside that class were
treated less severely. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67
(9th Cir. 2005).
Appellant’s claim that the property restrictions violated his due process
rights was properly dismissed because he failed to allege facts implicating a
constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint exceeds
an inmate’s sentence in “an unexpected manner” or imposes “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life”).
The district court properly dismissed the claim challenging the prison’s
grievance policies because “[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a
2 09-35712
grievance procedure.” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (order);
see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (the Prison Litigation
Reform Act “does not require exhaustion when no pertinent relief can be obtained
through the internal process”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Appellant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-35712