FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANFORD PAUL BRYANT, No. 12-17049
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00888-AWI-
BAM
v.
N. KARLOW; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Stanford Paul Bryant appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of
access to courts and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo both a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s access-to-courts claim for
failure to state a claim because the constitutional right of access to courts does not
encompass the right to pursue a state law tort suit for medical malpractice or
negligence. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-55 (1996) (for cognizable
access-to-courts claim, plaintiff must allege that defendants frustrated his pursuit of
a direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a habeas petition, or a civil rights action to
vindicate basic constitutional rights).
The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s retaliation claim for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies because Bryant failed to describe the alleged
retaliatory conduct in his grievance so as to put prison officials on notice of the
wrong for which he sought redress. See Sapp, 623 F.3d at 823-24 (for proper
exhaustion in compliance with California state regulations, inmates need to put
enough information in their grievances to alert prison officials to the nature of the
wrong for which redress is sought).
Bryant’s motions for judicial notice, filed on April 22 and May 31, 2013,
and his motion for extension of time to respond to defendants’ motion to strike,
2 12-17049
filed on May 29, 2013, are denied.
Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Bryant’s reply brief, filed on May
13, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17049