FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ARIAS-MALDONADO, No. 12-15246
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00216-JMS-
BMK
v.
D. K. SISTO, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13 , 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Arias-Maldonado, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We review de novo a district
*
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).
court’s summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004), and dismissal under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arias-
Maldonado’s Equal Protection Clause claim because Arias-Maldonado failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with a
racially discriminatory intent in transferring Arias-Maldonado to a prison outside
California. See United States v. Coleman, 24 F.3d 37, 38-39 (9th Cir. l994)
(“‘[E]ven if a neutral law has a disproportionately adverse impact on a racial
minority, it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause only if that
impact can be traced to a discriminatory purpose.’” (citation omitted)).
Dismissal of Arias-Maldonado’s claim that defendants failed to respond to
his emergency grievances was proper because Arias-Maldonado failed to allege an
actual injury and because he has no constitutional entitlement to a specific
grievance procedure. See Silva v. DiVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011)
(requiring plaintiffs to allege an “‘actual injury’ to court access” to state a claim for
violation of the First Amendment (citation omitted)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza,
334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional
entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).
2 12-15246
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arias-Maldonado
leave to file a third amended complaint to assert a claim alleging that defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by transferring him out-of-state without
proper medical screening. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc.,
465 F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a fifteen month delay between
obtaining the relevant facts and seeking leave to amend is unreasonable). Thus, we
decline to address the merits of this claim on appeal. See Crawford v. Lungren, 96
F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996) (declining to address claims not raised in the
complaint).
Arias-Maldonado’s motion to file a substitute reply brief is granted. The
Clerk shall file the reply brief received on September 13, 2012.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15246