NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
CHRIS B. GRINDLING, No. 11-15615
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02395-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TODD THOMAS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Chris B. Grindling, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and denial of his First Amendment rights.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grindling’s
deliberate indifference claim because Grindling failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant Bowden knew of and disregarded an
excessive risk to his health in determining whether to treat his Hepatitis C. See id.
at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and
disregard an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion
concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grindling’s First
Amendment claim because Grindling failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the grievance restriction imposed on him was reasonably related
to legitimate penological interests. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 361-62
(1996) (access to courts may be constitutionally curtailed in furtherance of
“legitimate penological interests”); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987)
(setting forth four-factor test to analyze validity of policies or regulations that
impinge on inmate’s First Amendment rights); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,
815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (retaliation claim requires prisoner to show
2 11-15615
that action does not further any legitimate penological goal). Furthermore,
Grindling failed to offer evidence that defendant Thomas deprived him of
grievance forms or directed others to do so. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisor only liable for constitutional violations of
subordinates if he or she participated in or directed the violations, or knew of but
failed to act to prevent them).
Grindling’s remaining contentions, including those concerning alleged
district court bias, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15615