Fernando Aranda v. Elizabeth Meyers;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FERNANDO ARANDA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH MEYERS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17600
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02211-FCD-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Aranda, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging improper
electronic surveillance within the prison and a conspiracy to poison him. We have
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

DS/Research 08-17600 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the surveillance claim because
Aranda’s allegations regarding the prison’s use of electronic surveillance do not
state a Fourth Amendment claim. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 527-28
(1984) (“A right of privacy in traditional Fourth Amendment terms is
fundamentally incompatible with the close and continual surveillance of inmates
and their cells required to ensure institutional security and internal order.”).
The district court properly dismissed the conspiracy claim because Aranda’s
allegations do not indicate that the defendant correctional officers conspired to
poison Aranda’s coffee, threaten him, or falsely accuse him of being a child
molester. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“[T]he court [is not] required to accept as true allegations that are merely
conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after properly dismissing the
federal claims. See Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th
Cir. 2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

DS/Research 08-17600 3
Aranda’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --