Nathan Smith v. H.A. RIOS, Jr., Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NATHAN SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
H.A. RIOS, Jr., Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16319
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01554-AWI-
MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Nathan Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-16319 2
defendant Rios violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. 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 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 Smith’s action because Smith failed to
allege that defendant personally participated in the alleged constitutional
violations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“[O]fficials may not
be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory
of respondeat superior.”); Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012)
(“Even under a deliberate indifference theory of individual liability, the Plaintiffs
must still allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish the defendant’s knowledge of
and acquiescence in the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent that Smith alleges that defendant violated his constitutional
rights in the processing of his grievance, Smith fails to state a claim because
prisoners do not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-16319 3
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --