Alfred Eugene Shallowhorn v. P.j. Gonzalez;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Shallowhorn consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALFRED EUGENE SHALLOWHORN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
P.J. GONZALEZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16310
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00305-GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 12, 2013***
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alfred Eugene Shallowhorn appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First,
FILED
MAR 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-16310 2
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action for failure to state a
claim under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shallowhorn’s retaliation claim
because Shallowhorn failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’
alleged delay in releasing him from administrative segregation pending a
classification review was retaliatory in nature and failed to advance a valid
penological goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(discussing elements of retaliation claim in the prison context).
The district court properly dismissed Shallowhorn’s due process claim
because, even assuming that his three-month administrative segregation implicated
a protected liberty interest, Shallowhorn failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that he was denied the process he was due. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071,
1077-78 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing due process owed to inmate facing disciplinary
action that implicates a protected liberty interest). Moreover, there is no
constitutional right to a particular grievance process. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334
F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (prisoners lack constitutional entitlement to a

-- 2 of 3 --

12-16310 3
specific prison grievance system).
The district court properly dismissed Shallowhorn’s Eighth Amendment
claim because Shallowhorn failed to allege that there was an objectively serious
risk of harm to his health related to placement in administrative segregation or that
defendants subjectively acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind in ignoring
such a risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994); see also
Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (short-term, temporary
deprivations of exercise without medical effects are not sufficiently serious to
support an Eighth Amendment claim).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --