José Abel Fierro v. RICHARDSON, Grievance Coordinator;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSÉ ABEL FIERRO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICHARDSON, Grievance Coordinator;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15914
D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00580-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
José Abel Fierro, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising from the loss of a box of legal documents when he was
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-15914 2
transferred between prisons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Fierro’s claim for
denial of access to the courts because Fierro failed to raise a triable issue as to
whether he suffered an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-53 &
n.3 (1996) (to show an actual injury, a prisoner must demonstrate that his efforts to
pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim were hindered).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Fierro’s retaliation
claim because Fierro failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants knew
about his prior lawsuit. See Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269 & n.3 (to defeat summary
judgment on a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context, the
prisoner must raise a triable issue as to whether, inter alia, defendants took an
adverse action against him because of his protected conduct).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Fierro’s due
process claim. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986) (“[T]he Due
Process Clause is . . . not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing
unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334

-- 2 of 3 --

09-15914 3
F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement
to a specific prison grievance procedure.”).
Fierro’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees’ Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal is construed as a
request for judicial notice and, as such, is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --