Ronald Adams v. California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD ADAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION;
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Secretary;
STEVEN C. SUZUKAWA, Superior Court
Judge; DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN,
Circuit Court Judge; EDWARD LEAVY,
Circuit Court Judge; T. MONTGOMERY,
Case records analyst; JOSE GASTELO,
Warden; KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney
General; CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
COURT,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16167
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00858-JAM-DB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
* 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).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16167
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald Adams appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations concerning visitation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Adams’s action because Adams failed
to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that his constitutional rights had been
violated. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 131-33 (2003) (upholding
prison restriction on minor visitation because the challenged regulation bore a
rational relation to legitimate penological interests); Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v.
Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1989) (explaining that the Due Process Clause
does not guarantee a right of unfettered visitation); Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196,
1202 (9th Cir. 2010) (observing that the court has “declined to recognize a
prisoner’s constitutional right to receive visits” and that “it is well-settled that
prisoners have no constitutional right while incarcerated to contact visits”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16167
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment
would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --