William Rainer v. D. Chapman;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RAINER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. CHAPMAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17128
D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05343-OWW-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner William Rainer appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
FILED
MAR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17128 2
novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rainer’s due process claims based on
his removal from his work assignment and transfer from the facility where his job
was located because these allegations did not give rise to a constitutionally
protected liberty or property interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995) (requiring “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life” or a restraint that exceeds the prisoner’s sentence
in “an unexpected manner” to state a liberty interest); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d
969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (there is no liberty or property interest in prison
employment).
The district court properly dismissed Rainer’s due process claim based on
defendants’ processing of Rainer’s administrative grievances because prisoners do
not have a protected liberty interest in a particular grievance procedure. See
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --