NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
THOMAS W.S. RICHEY, No. 12-35534
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00528-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
K BUILE, Mailroom Guard,
Defendant,
and
KAREN BURKE; TODD
FREDERICKSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Washington state prisoner Thomas W.S. Richey appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and
Fourteenth Amendment violations in connection with the rejection and disposal of
his incoming mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Richey’s First Amendment claim
because Richey alleged facts showing that defendants’ handling of his mail was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interest. See Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (a regulation that impinges on First Amendment rights “is valid
if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”); Frost v. Symington,
197 F.3d 348, 357 (9th Cir. 1999) (in light of concerns about preventing the sexual
harassment of prison guards and other inmates, prison officials may prohibit
receipt of sexually explicit materials); cf. Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265-66
(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (prison officials articulated a legitimate penological
interest in preventing the dissemination of outgoing mail containing dangerous or
offensive substances). Moreover, contrary to Richey’s contention, defendants’
alleged failure to follow prison policy does not establish a constitutional violation.
See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 12-35534
The district court properly dismissed Richey’s retaliation claim because
Richey failed to allege facts showing that the rejection and destruction of his mail
was because of defendants’ retaliatory motives and advanced no legitimate
penological interest. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994)
(per curiam) (elements of retaliation claim in the prison context); 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 still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court properly dismissed Richey’s due process claim alleging
unauthorized deprivation of his property because Richey has an adequate
post-deprivation remedy under Washington state law. See Wright v. Riveland, 219
F.3d 905, 918 (9th Cir. 2000) (no due process claim for unauthorized deprivation
of property where state provides adequate post-deprivation remedy).
The district court properly dismissed Richey’s claim alleging that he was
denied the right to appeal the decision to confiscate his mail because prisoners do
not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35534