JOSEPH RAYMOND McCOY v. ERNEST C. ROE, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSEPH RAYMOND McCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERNEST C. ROE, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
No. 11-56238
D.C. No. 2:03-cv-02393-VAP-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Raymond McCoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with the handling of his inmate grievances. We have
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56238 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McCoy’s claims arising from
defendants’ processing of and response to his grievances 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).
Contrary to McCoy’s contention, the district court properly declined to order
the U.S. Marshal to serve McCoy’s Fourth Amended Complaint because the
complaint had not yet been screened under § 1915A to determine whether it stated
any cognizable claims for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (“The court shall
review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --