FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 29 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH KEITH RENANDER, No. 22-15169
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04760-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TODD THOMAS; BENJAMIN GRIEGO;
JODI BRADLEY; D. SIGMON; NERO,
First name unknown, named as Sgt. Nero;
ROMERO, First name unknown, named as
Sgt. Romero; M. OLSEN; RIELAND,
First name unknown; ALIMAN, First
name unknown; HILL, First name
unknown; CORE CIVIC OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 28, 2023 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Joseph Renander appeals from the final dismissal of his prisoner civil rights
action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
summary judgment and dismissal of claims in the screening order de novo.
Johnson v. Ryan, 55 F.4th 1167, 1179 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim that Defendant Aleman violated his
rights by reading his legal mail; thus summary judgment was proper. At a bare
minimum, plaintiff’s grievance had to be specific enough to put the prison on
notice of the nature of the alleged wrong to allow the prison to correct the problem.
Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). The completed grievance
cited by plaintiff did not put the prison on notice of the claim that Defendant
Aleman or any other officer read legal mail in plaintiff’s presence during mail
delivery. See id. at 1121 (holding that a grievance requesting a ladder to access the
top bunk did not exhaust a claim that prison staff disregarded an order assigning
the prisoner to a lower bunk). Defendants came forward with evidence to establish
that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available remedies for his claim and that he was
able to file and complete grievances, including the grievance related to another
claim in the case. Plaintiff did not offer sufficient evidence to support his
arguments that the grievance system was effectively unavailable to him or that
officials prevented him from filing his grievance for this claim. See Albino v.
2
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the standard and
parties’ burdens) (en banc).
The district court did not err by dismissing claims, without prejudice, in the
screening order. The district court properly required that plaintiff link his claims to
named defendants and allege facts to support all of the elements of his claims. See
Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden
of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the
conduct of which he complaints.”); Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs., 637 F.2d 1350,
1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (section 1983 causation “can be established by showing that
the defendant personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights, or
caused such a deprivation to occur”). The district court was not required to accept
conclusory allegations that lacked supporting facts. Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
We decline to consider plaintiff’s challenges to the magistrate judge’s
nondispositive orders, including the orders denying leave to amend for failure to
comply with procedural rules and striking plaintiff’s untimely motion for partial
summary judgment. A party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate
judge’s nondispositive order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) forfeits
appellate review of the order. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170,
3
1174 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff forfeited his right to challenge the magistrate
judge’s orders on appeal by not objecting to those orders in district court.
To the extent that plaintiff argues that the district judge and magistrate
judge were biased, his argument lacks merit. Bias arises “from an extrajudicial
source not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.”
Leslie v Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The judges did not exhibit bias by identifying plaintiff’s convictions,
which were part of the record and relevant to the alleged claims. Moreover, the
fact that the judges ruled against plaintiff or that plaintiff believed that the judges
misapplied the law does not establish bias. Id.
AFFIRMED.
4