NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM EARL WADE, Jr., No. 20-16412
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00694-SPL-JFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAUL PENZONE, Maricopa County Sheriff;
KINDELL HOUSE, B3914, Supervisor
Inmate Legal Services at 4th Avenue Jail; B.
PIIRIMEN, External Referee at M.C.S.O.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2022**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner William Earl Wade, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand.
The district court properly dismissed Wade’s constitutional claims related to
defendant Piirimen’s failure to forward Wade’s grievance to the next level because
Wade failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally,
a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a claim); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334
F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement
to a specific prison grievance procedure[.]”).
The district court dismissed Wade’s constitutional claims regarding his
outgoing legal mail for failure to state a plausible claim. However, in the first
amended complaint, Wade alleged that prison officials held and read his outgoing
legal mail. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to warrant
ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116
(9th Cir. 2016); see also Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995)
(discussing prisoners’ First Amendment right to send and receive mail). We
reverse the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings on these claims
only.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
2 20-16412