Osiel Rodriguez v. J. KARGE, Captain;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Rodriguez consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.**
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OSIEL RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
J. KARGE, Captain; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15482
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00332-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 13, 2010***
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Osiel Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, 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
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15482 2
constitutional violations arising from an electronic word search of his documents
and related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim alleging
that prison officials improperly conducted electronic word searches on documents
that Rodriguez drafted on a shared word processor because inmates have no
legitimate expectation of privacy in their prison cells or possessions. See Hudson
v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-27 (1984).
The district court properly dismissed the due process claims because
Rodriguez failed to allege facts showing how his placement in the Secure Housing
Unit or transfer to the Administrative Maximum facility imposed an atypical and
significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223-34 (2005). Further, “inmates lack a
separate constitutional entitlement to a special prison grievance procedure.”
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --